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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT