However, even assuming that the witness was qualified to answer the question, when an answer was disallowed Poppell made no attempt whatever to show the substance and import of the excluded testimony. Skating Clubs of Ga. v. Hayes, 153 Ga. App. 857, 858 (2) ( 267 S.E.2d 285) (1980); Blizzard v. Bennett, 143 Ga. App. 568, 570 (4) ( 239 S.E.2d 223) (1977). There was no error.
We now address the issue squarely before this Court: Did the trial court err in ordering that defendant be transferred from the court's juvenile jurisdiction to its criminal jurisdiction? The United States Supreme Court in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) followed by this Court in State v. McArdle, 156 W. Va. 409, 195 S.E.2d 174 (1973) and State ex rel. Smith v. Scott, ___ W. Va. ___, 239 S.E.2d 223 (1977) made it clear that a meaningful transfer hearing must be held before a child can be put under a trial court's criminal jurisdiction. In State v. McArdle the conviction of possession and sale of marihuana was vacated becase the trial court "[w]ithout any evidence and actually without any hearing" expressly transferred the juvenile because "he [the accused juvenile] is mature enough to do that with which he is charged, that is, possessing and selling marihuana, he is mature enough to be treated as an adult.