ILNews

Court: juveniles can be placed on sex offender registry

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals says a ruling by the state justices last year can’t be used to stop juvenile courts from ordering juveniles to register as sex offenders.

In a five-page decision today in C.E.K., II, v. State of Indiana, No. 28A05-1002-JV-100, a three-judge panel affirmed a decision by Greene Circuit Judge Erik C. Allen in a juvenile sex offender case. The juvenile known as C.E.K. was 14 years old when he committed two child molesting acts that would have been Class B and C felonies if committed by an adult. The judge found him to be delinquent and put him on supervised probation until the age of 18, and the state later asked that C.E.K. be placed on the state’s sex offender registry. Judge Allen found him to be “a high risk to re-offend” and ordered that registration, but C.E.K. appealed.

On appeal, C.E.K. argued that the Indiana Supreme Court decision last year in Wallace v. State, 905 N.E. 2d 371 (Ind. 2009), applied to him as a juvenile and didn’t allow for his placement on the sex offender registry. In Wallace, the justices held the registration statute as applied to that defendant was unconstitutional because it constituted retroactive punishment forbidden by the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution. C.E.K. seized that analysis and argued the juvenile court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to apply it.

Not the case, according to the intermediate appellate court.

“C.E.K reads too much into Wallace,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the panel. “The court did not hold that the Act is facially unconstitutional, and C.E.K. does not (and cannot) raise an ex post facto challenge to the juvenile court’s order that he comply with the Act. Further, in a companion case to Wallace, the court held that the Act was ‘non-punitive when applied to’ another defendant. Thus, while the Supreme Court recognized that the Act had punitive elements that forbade its retroactive application under Indiana’s Ex Post Facto Clause, the court did not hold that the Act is a wholly punitive measure that would violate the juvenile court’s rehabilitative policies.”

With that, the appellate court relied on its decade-old holding in K.J.P. v. State, 724 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), which had rejected another juvenile’s claim that requiring juveniles to register as sex offenders conflicted with the rehabilitative purposes of the state’s juvenile code.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT