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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT