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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT