Assigned on Briefs December 13, 2016 
from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County No. 13078 O.
Duane Slone, Judge
October 3, 2015, the Jefferson County Sheriff filed a
petition in the Jefferson County Juvenile Court requesting
the court to "make inquiry into" an alleged
violation of the adult crime of first degree murder by B.T.,
an eleven-year-old boy. The juvenile court initially set an
adjudicatory hearing for October 28, 2015, but the court
later granted two continuances at the request of the State.
B.T. filed a petition for writ of certiorari and motion to
dismiss in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County seeking
dismissal of the petition against him on the basis that the
juvenile court erred in granting the continuances. On January
6, 2016, the circuit court held a hearing on the
respondent's filings. The court took the matter under
advisement pending the juvenile court's adjudicatory
hearing scheduled for January 22, 2016. B.T. appeals. We
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Affirmed; Case Remanded
C. Miller, Public Defender, 4th Judicial District, and
Rebecca V. Lee, Assistant Public Defender, Dandridge,
Tennessee, for the appellant, B.T.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, and
James E. Gaylord, Senior Counsel, Criminal Appeals Division,
Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the
court, in which D. Michael Swiney, C.J., and Thomas R.
Frierson, II, J., joined.
CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
October 3, 2015, B.T. asked an eight year-old female neighbor
who was playing outside his home to see puppies she had in
her home. When the girl refused, B.T. got a shotgun from his
parents' closet and shot the girl in the chest from a
window inside his home. The girl died from her wounds.
adjudicatory hearing was scheduled in the juvenile court for
October 28, 2015. On October 20, 2015, the State filed a
motion to continue that hearing on the basis that it was
awaiting the results of firearm testing and fingerprint
analysis. The State also asserted that it was seeking to
obtain a psychological evaluation and B.T.'s school
opposed the motion on the grounds that (1) he was willing to
stipulate that his fingerprints and another child's
fingerprints would be on the firearm, (2) he was also willing
to stipulate that the firearm was the firearm used in the
shooting, (3) the State is not entitled to a psychological
evaluation unless he intends to use the report in his
casein-chief or intends to call the psychologist as a
witness, (4) the State is not entitled to his school records
unless he intends to use the evidence in his case-in-chief or
call the author of the records as a witness at trial, and (5)
the evidence the State is seeking to obtain would not
constitute an extraordinary reason to grant the continuance,
such as is required by the rules of juvenile procedure. The
juvenile court granted the State's motion and continued
the hearing to December 16, 2015.
to the December hearing, the State filed a motion to continue
that hearing. The State asserted that the firearm testing and
fingerprint analysis had not yet been completed.
Additionally, the State had requested a trajectory analysis
of which it was awaiting the results.
opposed the second motion on many of the same grounds that he
opposed the State's first motion. He also asserted that
the State did not request a trajectory analysis until
recently and that he should not be prejudiced because of the
State's delay. On December 14, 2015, the juvenile court
held a hearing on the State's motion to continue. The
court granted one final continuance and set the adjudicatory
hearing for January 22, 2016.
December 15, 2015, B.T. filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari and a motion to dismiss the juvenile court
petition against him with prejudice in the Jefferson County
Circuit Court. In his petition for certiorari, B.T. asserted
that the juvenile court granted the first continuance without
a showing of good cause in violation of Tennessee Rule of
Juvenile Procedure 17(b) and granted the second continuance
without a showing of extraordinary circumstances warranting
the continuance. He also asserted that "the juvenile
court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally by
setting a date for the adjudicatory hearing beyond the
ninety-day window" established by Tennessee Rule of
Juvenile Procedure 17(a).
January 6, 2016, the circuit court held a hearing on
B.T.'s petition for writ of certiorari and motion to
dismiss. In making its ruling, the court found the following
with respect to the State's requests for continuances:
[T]he matter being set for hearing 111 days after the alleged
offense occurred[, ] . . . the Juvenile Court has not acted
with regard to granting continuances illegally, arbitrarily
or capriciously. The State in ordering some of these tests or
asking for them, the State's obligation isn't just to
. . . have the accused convicted or adjudicated in this case,
but the State's obligation is to make sure that the right
person is . . . convicted[.] . . . [T]hey have a higher
obligation than defense counsel does in that regard. . . .
And the Court - while no evidence was introduced during the
trial to support the request for a fingerprint analysis and
trajectory analysis and the timing [with] respect . . . to
the evidence not being introduced, either it was or it
wasn't, and there . . . should not be any requirement
that you bring in some officer to . . . testify that this is
the reason for fingerprint analysis. The courts know why you
need fingerprint analysis, trajectory analysis, firearms
analysis. And then an officer of the court represents [it]
hasn't been done . . . or . . . we've requested it, .
. . the Court finds that to be sufficient.
Now, the timing again of the request for certain analysis, if
we were months down the road, a year down the road, and the
State said no trajectory analysis has been done [and] there
wasn't a really good explanation why it hadn't been
done yet, then if the Court exercises discretion, [it] could
very well not grant the continuance on that basis. The