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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.