ILNews

Appellate court affirms juvenile committed theft, burglary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There was sufficient evidence to support the findings that a teenage girl committed what would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday. The judges overturned the finding she carried a handgun without a license and ordered that the juvenile court correct its dispositional order.

In K.F. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1103-JV-290, K.F. challenged the findings she committed burglary, theft and carried a handgun without a license, arguing that she couldn’t have committed theft or burglary because she was accused of breaking into her own home and stealing items. K.F. ran away from home, so her mother and her mother’s boyfriend changed the locks and garage code, but didn’t change the alarm code. K.F.’s mother put a bag of K.F.’s clothes in the garage. When the two were at work, the house was broken into and electronics, video games, jewelry, firearms and the bag of clothes were taken.

The bag of clothes was later discovered at K.F.’s friend’s house. When K.F. was found by police and taken to the police station, she met in a room alone with her mother before speaking to police. In the room, K.F. admitted that she went to her house on the day of the burglary but said the door was already open, although nothing had been taken. She claimed she went there just to get her belongings.

At a denial hearing, the juvenile court allowed testimony from the police officer who responded to the burglary, where he recounted what the mother had told him about the burglary and items missing. The juvenile court also allowed the mother to testify as to what K.F. told her in the room at the police station.

The appellate court upheld the findings she committed theft and burglary, rejecting K.F.’s arguments that she couldn’t be found to have committed the acts because they involved her own home. The judges did reverse the finding she committed what would be carrying a handgun without a license because the evidence didn’t show she had actual or constructive possession of a gun.

Turning to the admittance of her mother’s testimony, the appellate court affirmed, finding the juvenile waiver statute to be inapplicable because K.F. wasn’t subject to an interrogation when she spoke to her mother. The mother’s statements to police, as testified by the officer, should not have been allowed because they were hearsay, but the admission was a harmless error.

The COA remanded with instructions for the juvenile court to correct the Feb. 23, 2011, dispositional order and chronological case summary entry to accurately reflect the true findings that were entered by the court.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT