The ruling rejected a reverse-waiver request after testimony focused on whether juvenile treatment could adequately address the teenager’s long-term needs.

GREEN BAY, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge has ruled that 17-year-old Ramone Waupoose will remain in adult criminal court on charges stemming from an alleged 2025 attack on his mother with pruning shears, rejecting a defense effort to transfer the case to the juvenile system.

The decision centered not simply on Waupoose’s age but on a Wisconsin procedure known as reverse waiver. Because Waupoose was 16 when authorities accused him of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, his case began in adult court under state law governing certain serious offenses by juveniles. His attorneys sought to move the prosecution to juvenile court, where they argued he could receive a more structured form of treatment. Judge Beau Liegeois rejected that request after hearing testimony about available services, the length of treatment Waupoose may require and the seriousness of the allegations against him. Waupoose has not been convicted, and the allegations in the criminal complaint remain accusations that prosecutors must prove.

Wisconsin law places the burden on a juvenile seeking reverse waiver to satisfy several requirements before a criminal case can be transferred out of adult court. The court considers whether adequate treatment would be available in the criminal justice system, whether transferring the case would diminish the seriousness of the alleged offense and whether keeping the prosecution in adult court is necessary for deterrence. In Waupoose’s case, the dispute focused heavily on treatment. Psychologist Greg Van Rybroek testified that the structure and services available through the juvenile system would better serve Waupoose and could reduce the likelihood that he would offend again. He also testified that a transfer would not unduly minimize the gravity of the alleged conduct.

Prosecutors took the opposite position. Assistant District Attorney Kim Hardtke emphasized that the case was presumed to remain in adult court unless the defense met the legal requirements for transfer and argued that treatment options would still be available through the adult system. Liegeois ultimately concluded that the approximately five-year treatment window discussed for the juvenile system was inadequate in light of both the seriousness of the charged conduct and Waupoose’s treatment needs. Van Rybroek’s testimony indicated those needs could extend beyond the period available through juvenile services. The ruling did not decide whether Waupoose committed the crimes charged. It decided which court system will continue handling the prosecution.

Waupoose’s mother, Nicole Waupoose, took a different position from prosecutors even though she is the alleged victim in the case. She asked the court to transfer her son to juvenile court, telling the judge that she believed he would receive the best treatment there. Her request brought an unusual tension to the hearing: The person prosecutors say suffered the alleged attack supported a court setting that she believed offered her son a better chance at treatment. The judge was required, however, to apply the statutory reverse-waiver requirements rather than decide the issue solely on the wishes of the alleged victim or the defense. Liegeois concluded that the juvenile system could not provide an adequate period of intervention under the circumstances presented to him.

The charges arise from an incident at the family’s home in Suamico on July 16, 2025. According to the criminal complaint, Nicole Waupoose told investigators that her son had recently been returned home after running away and was angry about that intervention. She also said he was upset that she had removed rap videos from his YouTube account. The complaint describes increasingly troubling behavior in the period before the alleged attack. His mother told investigators that she became concerned enough to gather knives, sharp kitchen utensils and several tools and place them in her vehicle. She said she watched household cameras and later saw her son searching in the garage, where she believed he found a large pair of pruning shears.

According to the complaint, the home’s electricity later began switching off, leading Nicole Waupoose toward an electrical box. Prosecutors allege Waupoose attacked her there with the pruning shears. She told investigators she used a garbage can to protect herself and eventually escaped from the house with her younger son. Authorities said she suffered injuries to her head, face, arms and back and received medical treatment that included staples and stitches. Investigators reported finding pruning shears about 2 feet long at the residence and observing blood near them. Those details come from the charging document and have not been established by a verdict at trial.

The criminal complaint also describes evidence recovered from Waupoose’s phone. Investigators said messages contained threats against his mother, his younger brother and an ex-girlfriend. Some messages, according to the complaint, discussed plans to kill family members and record an attack. Earlier reporting on the case said the younger brother located the phone and that investigators later reviewed its contents. Prosecutors have cited those messages as part of the evidence underlying the case. The court has not determined at trial whether the messages prove the intent alleged by the state, and Waupoose retains the presumption of innocence as the prosecution moves forward.

The path to the reverse-waiver ruling took more than a year. Waupoose was charged in August 2025 with attempted first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon. His attorney soon raised concerns about whether he was competent to proceed in court. A medical examiner initially found him not competent, and the court ordered an updated evaluation tailored to the adult criminal system. Competency addresses whether a defendant can understand court proceedings and assist in a defense; it is separate from the question of guilt. The prosecution was paused while that issue was addressed. By March 2026, Waupoose had been found competent to continue with the case.

Once proceedings resumed, the defense turned to the question of jurisdiction. After a preliminary hearing, Waupoose was ordered to stand trial, and his attorneys pursued the reverse-waiver process. The case presented an additional timing issue because Waupoose turned 17 on May 2, 2026. Wisconsin generally treats 17-year-olds as adults for criminal prosecution, but the court allowed consideration of the reverse-waiver request to continue because Waupoose had been 16 when the alleged conduct occurred and some juvenile-system services could still potentially have been available. That decision allowed the defense to present evidence on treatment rather than ending the request solely because of his birthday.

The September ruling resolved that jurisdictional fight in favor of adult court. Its practical importance is substantial because juvenile and adult proceedings differ in available treatment structures, supervision and potential consequences. Liegeois did not find that juvenile services lacked value. Instead, reporting from the hearing indicates he concluded that the amount of treatment available there was not adequate for Waupoose’s needs when considered alongside the seriousness of the alleged offense. That finding defeated the effort to move the case even after a defense expert and Waupoose’s mother argued that juvenile placement would provide a more appropriate environment.

The most recently published reports reviewed for this story said a status conference was scheduled for Oct. 27 following the reverse-waiver ruling. No later public report establishing a trial result or other final disposition was identified in the sources reviewed through Nov. 6. Waupoose therefore remains an accused defendant, and the September decision should not be read as a finding that he committed the alleged attack. It means the criminal prosecution will proceed within the adult court system unless a later court ruling changes that status.

Author note: Last updated Nov. 6, 2026.