ILNews

Juvenile entitled to separate hearing

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court judgment after ruling the court improperly incorporated the record of a child hearsay hearing into the fact-finding hearing.

In L.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0701-JV-45, L.H. appealed his conviction in juvenile court of child molesting, a Class C felony if committed by an adult, and battery, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. In 2006, the then 12-year-old was accused of inappropriately touching his 8-year-old cousin, A.H., over the course of four years. A.H. was taken to the Child Advocacy Center where a videotaped interview about these allegations took place.

A fact-finding hearing on the child molesting and battery charges was scheduled for November 2006. Prior to that hearing, the state filed a Child Hearsay Notice to notify L.H. it planned to introduce out-of-court statements by A.H., including the videotaped interview, and requested a hearing for determining the admissibility of this evidence pursuant to Indiana Code 35-37-4-6.

At the November hearing, the state introduced evidence, including the videotaped interview. Both the state and L.H. referred to the hearing at several points as the child hearsay hearing. The state moved for the admissibility of the hearsay statements presented during the hearing and to incorporate all the testimony and evidence entered. L.H. objected and the court granted the state's motions. It then invited arguments for the fact-finding portion of the hearing and made true findings on the child molesting and battery allegations.

L.H. appealed the juvenile court finding, contending the requirements of the child hearsay statute were not met and that incorporation denied him a fair trial.

The appellate court found there was no agreement between the two parties to incorporate, and L.H. objected several times to the incorporation. L.H. was entitled to have a fact-finding hearing at which procedural safeguards and evidentiary rules are observed, wrote Judge Margret Robb, and incorporating the testimony from a preliminary hearing on an evidentiary matter denied L.H. the hearing to which he is entitled. The majority of judges reversed the juvenile court's true findings and remanded for a fact-finding hearing.

Judge James Kirsch dissented, ruling L.H. failed to show he was prejudiced from the court incorporation of evidence from the child hearsay hearing into the fact-finding hearing. Judge Kirsch wrote he didn't see any procedural safeguards or evidentiary rules that weren't followed, and L.H. didn't bring any up in his brief. He wrote he would affirm the trial court in all respects.
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