ILNews

Court could find juvenile must register as sex offender

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Montgomery Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction to order a juvenile to register as a sex offender for 10 years, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

T.W. appealed the order that he register as a sex offender for 10 years following his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be two counts of Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. After he was discharged from the Indiana Department of Correction, the state filed the petition for T.W. to register as a sex offender. The trial court appointed two psychologists to evaluate him; T.W.’s attorney was never notified about the petition for T.W. to register as a sex offender or that he was being evaluated by psychologists.

The psychologists testified, over T.W.’s objection, that there was a high risk he would re-offend.

T.W. challenged the order on two issues: that the trial court didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to make him register and that the two psychologists shouldn’t have been allowed to testify because his attorney hadn’t been notified about the evaluation and their testimonies were protected by the psychologist-patient privilege.

In T.W. v. State of Indiana, No. 54A01-1103-JV-125, the Court of Appeals rejected T.W.’s argument that Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009), prevents him from being ordered to register as a sex offender. The state’s Juvenile Code doesn’t prohibit a juvenile court or a court with juvenile jurisdiction – as is the case here – from imposing what might be called “punishment” upon a juvenile, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. Another purpose of the code is to promote public safety, and the sex offender registry is directly related to the protection of the public.

“Although the sex offender registry statutes are not part of the Juvenile Code, it is logical to assume that the General Assembly intended courts with juvenile jurisdiction to also have subject matter jurisdiction to make a sex offender registry finding,” he wrote.

T.W. cited no authority to support his argument that his attorney should have been notified about his evaluation by psychologists, and the judges compared it to a discovery violation in failing to disclose evidence. There’s nothing to indicate bad faith or deliberate malfeasance regarding the fact that T.W.’s attorney was not alerted to the fact that the evaluation would take place, and it’s doubtful T.W. even had a right to have an attorney present for those examinations, the court ruled.

The judges also concluded that the psychologists’ testimony was allowed under the “catch all” exception of Indiana Code 25-33-1-17(6), which allows for a psychologist to disclose information in “circumstances under which privileged communications is abrogated under the laws of Indiana.”

It would be impossible for a trial court to carry out the statutory mandate that a trial court consider expert testimony concerning whether a child is likely to repeat an offense if the statutory psychologist-patient privilege prevented it, wrote Judge Barnes. He noted the appellate court’s holding is consistent with a case involving the psychologist-patient privilege in the context of termination of parental rights proceedings.

“… there is no statute expressly abrogating the psychologist-patient privilege in juvenile sex offender registry proceedings. Nonetheless, we conclude that such proceedings under Indiana Code Chapter 11-8-8 necessarily present a situation in which the privilege ‘is abrogated under the laws of Indiana’ by implication, at least with respect to the question of whether a juvenile is likely to reoffend,” he wrote.

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. 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