Even though Missouri’s “one family, one judge” statutory framework meant that the judge hearing the charge that a juvenile committed the offense of assault while on school property was the same judge who knew of the juvenile’s behavioral history, which could be inadmissible propensity evidence, the judge’s factual finding that the juvenile committed the assault was not plain error and his reference to her history was a criticism aimed at the school for their poor service to the student.
Judgment is affirmed.
In the Interest of D.M. (MLW No. 63726/ED97662– 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Ahrens, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, Edwards, J. (Sarah Johnson and Marsha L. Levick, , for appellant) (Margaret E. Gangle, St. Louis, for respondent).