ILNews

COA finds fundamental error in juvenile case, again

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case identical to one it ruled on earlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals today found the state violated a juvenile’s right to counsel at her detention hearing.

Juvenile A.S. was detained in October 2008 on suspicion of battery. At her detention hearing the next day, no witnesses were sworn in and no evidence was heard. She and her mother signed a document that the trial court apparently treated as a waiver to a number of rights, including A.S.’s right to counsel. The magistrate never asked if A.S. wanted legal representation or counsel appointed, nor did the magistrate inform her of the burdens of proceeding pro se.

A.S. had been in trouble before and at that time, she and her mother signed the same waiver. In A.S. v. State, 923 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), the appellate court ruled A.S.’s alleged waiver of counsel was invalid. She had moved for relief from judgment finding her to be delinquent because she had been adjudicated without counsel and without waiving her right to counsel.

The Court of Appeals found the latest waiver A.S. signed also didn’t comport with constitutional requirements. A.S. was appealing in the instant case that she was denied certain rights at her initial detention hearing, she shouldn’t have been adjudicated as a delinquent because her hearing didn’t take place within 60 days, and she wasn’t tried by a jury.

The state argued against the appellate court addressing the merits of the violation because A.S. didn’t raise the claim and it’s moot because she’s no longer detained.  

The Court of Appeals in A.S. v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0908-JV-423, ruled A.S.’s constitutional claim wasn’t waived due to fundamental error because she was not adequately informed of her right to counsel. The appellate judges decided to consider A.S.’s constitutional right because it reflects a question of great public importance and the issue is likely to recur. They found her initial detention was improper because the court didn’t get a constitutionally sufficient waiver of counsel from her and didn’t allow her to present evidence or confront witnesses.

The judges rejected her argument that her hearing didn’t happen within the required 60 days. Her hearing happened 90 days after she was initially detained. Every Saturday, Sunday, and holiday during that period should be excluded from calculation, which then puts A.S.’s hearing held within the 60-day period. In addition, A.S. did not have a right to trial by jury.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "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! :/

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT