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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT