ILNews

COA: Admittance of juvenile’s statement harmless error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided Thursday over whether a 12-year-old boy accused of child molesting and his mother were afforded the opportunity to have a meaningful consultation before speaking to police. The judges did agree that the boy’s adjudication should be affirmed.

The court record shows that J.L., who was 12 years old, asked 6-year-old F.R. on May 26, 2012, if he wanted “to have a gay party,” and F.R. said “no.” J.L. persisted, F.R. did not cooperate, and J.L. then touched F.R.’s penis by placing his hand over F.R.’s clothing and squeezing F.R.’s penis for “one minute.” J.L. asked F.R. if he liked it, and F.R. responded “no.” Later that night, F.R. attempted to wake his father to tell him what had occurred, but J.L. prevented him from doing so. F.R. told his mother when he returned to her house at the end of the weekend.

J.L. and his mother went to the police in January 2013 to discuss the incident with Indianapolis Metropolitan Police detective Robin Meyers. J.L.’s mother does not speak English, so an officer interpreted for her and she was provided the juvenile waiver form in Spanish. Meyers told J.L. and his mother they could have time to talk together if they wanted, but officers never left the room and never stopped recording the interview. J.L. and his mother eventually agreed to talk in which J.L. admitted to touching the boy’s penis.

F.R. also testified about the incident. J.L. was found to have committed what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. He appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in admitting his statement to police and that the evidence doesn’t sustain his adjudication.  

In J.L. v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1306-JV-297, Judges Elaine Brown and Margret Robb found J.L. and his mother did not knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to meaningful consultation, citing the evidence that police never left the room and the interview continued to be recorded. But that error was harmless, Brown wrote.

“[H]ere the evidence reveals that J.L. taught F.R. about ‘gay parties’ and asked F.R. if he enjoyed it when J.L. touched his penis. Such conduct supports the inference that J.L. intended to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires,” Brown wrote. “Under these circumstances, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that J.L. committed an act that would constitute child molesting as a class C felony if committed by an adult.”

Judge Barnes concurred in result, believing that the meaningful opportunity to confer was extended, considered and knowingly and voluntarily waived as contemplated by I.C. 31-32-5-2.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT