Matter of Flowers

Thompson, j., delivered the opinion of the Court. Eugene Flowers appeals from a determination by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, (Division of Juvenile Causes), Judge Robert I. H. Hammerman presiding, to waive its exclusive jurisdiction over appellant, Md. Code, Art. 26, §70-16, and to permit him to be tried in a criminal court. The issues presented are quite narrow: (1) the admissibility of hearsay evidence; (2) assuming the admission of the hearsay evidence was proper, is it sufficient to support the waiver; and (3) the admissibility of prior convictions and juvenile delinquencies. There is no contention that if all of the evidence was properly admitted and entitled to full weight, the waiver as to the appellant, age 17, and with an extensive record, was improper on the merits.

We will discuss the second contention first. The victim testified that her purse was snatched by a boy whom she could not identify. When the recipient of a check which was in the purse declined to testify, the state called a police officer who testified that the recipient stated in writing, soon after the crime was committed that appellant had given him the check. The appellant argues that since this evidence is hearsay, it is insufficient to show the appellant’s criminal agency.

In Hazell v. State, 12 Md. App. 144 , 277 A. 2d 639 , and Matter of Thomas William Waters, 13 Md. App. 95 , 281 A. 2d 560 , we held that the purpose of a juvenile waiver hearing was to “resolve the question of waiver vel non and that this is done on the assumption that ⁴¹⁶ probably the crime alleged was committed and that the juvenile committed it.” Matter of Thomas William Waters, supra, at page 103 of 13 Md. App. We now apply the law as set forth and fully discussed in those recent cases. Since it was unnecessary for the state to establish the criminal agency of the appellant at the waiver hearing, there is no reason for us to now consider the sufficiency of the officer’s testimony to show the criminal agency. The appellant will, of course, have the opportunity to question the sufficiency of such proof at the criminal trial to follow these proceedings. The purpose of a juvenile waiver hearing is to determine the fitness of the child for juvenile rehabilitative measures giving due consideration to the safety of the public.

Md. Code, Art. 26, §70-16 (b) sets out specific factors to be considered in making a determination to waive juvenile jurisdiction: “(1) Age of child. (2) Mental and physical condition of child. (3) The child’s amenability to treatment in any institution, facility, or programs available to delinquents. (4) The nature of the offense.

(5) The safety of the public.” In considering items (2), (3), (4) and (5), the degree of the juvenile’s participation would be a factor. Where there is evidence showing minimal involvement in the offense, the juvenile petition or a