ILNews

Court: Rehabilitation evaluation a must

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court says that before any juvenile can be placed on the state's sex offender registry, a trial court must first evaluate whether that minor has been rehabilitated to determine if there's clear and convincing evidence he or she might re-offend.

A Marion Superior magistrate didn't do that and on Tuesday, justices reversed the lower court's decision requiring a then-14-year-old boy to register as a sex offender. The eight-page ruling came on a petition to transfer in J.C.C. v. State, No. 49S02-0803-JV-143.

During a year's incarceration at the Indiana Boys' School in 2000 for a series of nine child molesting offenses with younger boys, the juvenile referred to as J.C.C. completed a sex offender treatment program and was released. The state petitioned that the juvenile register as a sex offender and the trial court ordered that registry.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, J.C.C. argued that the state didn't show clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to re-offend, and that the trial court should not have denied his Trial Rule 60(B) claim to set aside the adjudications. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a certified juvenile sex offender counselor adequately conducted an assessment that showed J.C.C. was a high risk for re-offending despite his completion of the treatment program.

But the justices disagreed, pointing out that the counselor's only evaluation of J.C.C. was prior to the juvenile's placement in the Department of Correction and treatment program.

"Though such an interview is not required, the expert's testimony or other evidence must analyze whether the juvenile has been rehabilitated subsequent to disposition," Justice Frank Sullivan wrote for the court. "That did not occur in this case. Without such evidence, we cannot conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence that J.C.C. is likely to commit another sex offense."

The court's analysis is grounded in specific provisions of Indiana's juvenile sex offender registry statute and the general purpose of the juvenile code, Justice Sullivan wrote. An evidentiary hearing is required to determine if a minor is likely to be a repeat sex offender, but when a juvenile is placed within detention or prison, that registry hearing can't be held until after the juvenile is released. As a result, the court determined that the legislative intent is to wait on a sex offender registration determination until that juvenile has the chance to be rehabilitated during detention.

"In addition to the specific provisions of the statute we have been exploring, we also find it highly relevant.... That the Legislature has articulated that guiding policy of this State and the purpose behind Indiana's juvenile justice system is to 'ensure that children within the juvenile justice system are treated as persons in need of care, protection, treatment, and rehabilitation,'" Justice Sullivan wrote. "This policy is consistent with the State's primary interest in rehabilitation, rather than punishment of juvenile delinquents."

Justices vacated the appellate court's order except for the portion addressing the Trial Rule 60(B) claim to set aside adjudications.

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. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT