Deadlocked justices reinstate COA order allowing juvenile arrest expungement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After the four participating justices who heard arguments in an expungement case Thursday became deadlocked over the case’s proper disposition, the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the Court of Appeals order granting a juvenile expungement petition.

The justices followed Appellate Rule 58, which is designed to move a case when the high court hits gridlock.

After hearing arguments in the case of T.A. v. State, 62 N.E.3d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), which dealt with the question of whether an expungement petition can be granted if the petitioner is arrested after the petition is filed, Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Robert Rucker, Steve David and Mark Massa were evenly divided over what the outcome of the case should be, according to an order posted Friday but dated Thursday, the same day as the arguments. Justice Geoffrey Slaughter did not participate in the arguments.

In the case, 19-year-old T.A. had filed for expungement of juvenile arrests when he was subsequently arrested for an apparent misdemeanor. His counsel argued that under the plain language of Indiana Code 35-38-9-1(e), his petition could still be granted because he had no pending charges “upon receipt” of the petition in court, or the date it was filed.

The state, however, urged the justices to hold that courts have discretion when granting such petitions. The trial court denied T.A.’s petition, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to grant it.

Under Appellate Rule 58(C), when “the Supreme Court is evenly divided after transfer has been granted, the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be reinstated.” Thus, the Thursday order reinstated the COA’s reversal of the trial court’s denial of T.A.’s petition, allowing him to have his juvenile arrests expunged. Petitions for rehearing will not be allowed, according to the order.


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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.