ILNews

COA reverses juvenile's exploitation adjudication

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile’s adjudication for exploiting an endangered adult because the state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 17-year-old took advantage of the mentally retarded man.

A.H. was adjudicated for committing what would be exploitation of an endangered adult, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, for getting Robert Barnhart to write her two checks for loans. Barnhart was diagnosed with “mental retardation,” has a very low IQ, can’t read or write, and is legally blind. He receives assistance from a developmental disabilities provider.

At the recommendation of her cousin, A.H. went to Barnhart and convinced him to write her a check for $750 so A.H. could bail her husband out of jail. She filled out the top part of the check and Barnhart signed it. The check was never cashed but she used it to get $750 from Charlie Matthews. She then got a loan to repay that $750 borrowed from Matthews. A.H. also got Barnhart to give her $100 by check so she could go to Indiana Beach. She then exchanged the check with Matthews for the cash. She did repay $25 of that loan to Barnhart. A.H. was charged after the developmental disabilities provider found discrepancies in Barnhart’s checking account.

The juvenile court ordered A.H. to the Department of Correction until she was 21 unless the DOC released her sooner.

That adjudication was an error, the Court of Appeals ruled in A.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 37A04-1002-JV-50, because the state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.H. recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally exerted unauthorized use of the property of an endangered person for her own profit or for the profit of another person.

The appellate court noted Barnhart agreed to give her the loans, was never threatened, and A.H. had begun to repay the only outstanding loan.

“While Barnhart may have diminished capacity and A.H. prevailed against Barnhart, we do not believe that the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that A.H.’s use of Barnhart’s property was unauthorized,” wrote Judge Elaine Brown. “While we do not make a finding as to A.H.’s credibility and do not approve or condone A.H.’s action in obtaining money from Barnhart, we simply do not find the evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof required by the statute.”
 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT