ILNews

IBA: Juvenile Delinquency 101

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

delameter-joe-mug.jpgBy Joe Delamater, Deputy Prosecutor, Juvenile Repeat Offender Unit, Marion County Prosecutor’s Office

Juvenile delinquency cases are unique. Hopefully, I can highlight some areas of delinquency law to help familiarize you with the system. Juvenile delinquency matters are no different than any other case. You are ready once you get over the new terminology and the case-by-case idiosyncrasies.

First know that, distinct from criminal courts, the juvenile court is your gatekeeper. Juvenile courts are required to assess what the best care, treatment and rehabilitation is for each child. The court decides whether charges are approved for filing or whether to afford the child an “informal adjustment,” which is akin to an adult diversion. The court decides whether a child is waived into adult court to face charges, whether commitment to the Department of Correction is appropriate, and how long the child stays on probation. All of this is decided in the best interests of the child and the community. Once you recognize how the court operates all of the rest falls in place around it.

Juvenile delinquency cases are civil. However, the Indiana Juvenile Code adopts the rules governing criminal procedures. IC § 31-32-1-1. Therefore, the burden of proof, trial rules, and rules of evidence that you know and love apply here. The juvenile code, specifically IC § 31-30, 31-32 and 31-37, are your juvenile bible. Know and love these sections because the juvenile code trumps any adopted provisions.

Because these cases are civil, many labels are different. Juveniles aren’t convicted; they are adjudicated delinquent. IC § 31-32-2-6. Therefore, enhancements based on prior convictions do not apply to juveniles. Moreover, juvenile courts enter a dispositional order and not a sentence. Like an adult pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), a pre-dispositional report is created by probation and is similar to the PSI. The accused are respondents and not defendants. The accused enters an admission or denial as they cannot be found “guilty or “not guilty.”

Another difference is the involvement of the probation department. It is completely statutory and rather thorough. IC § 31-31-5-4. Prior to the Initial Hearing, a probation officer (P.O.) performs a preliminary inquiry into various aspects of the child’s and family’s life. The depth of this will vary by county. In Marion County, at the Initial Hearing, a P.O. makes recommendations to the court regarding conditions of release based on their preliminary inquiry. The P.O. stays involved throughout the case and periodically reports back to the court. The P.O. will also make a recommendation at disposition.

Juvenile courts lacks jurisdiction for certain crimes although committed by juveniles. IC § 31-30-1-4. Know that, if your client is sixteen or seventeen, there are a number of crimes that may be filed in adult court. The State can also seek “waiver” and request that a juvenile be tried as an adult when they reach a certain age (this varies by the type of allegation.) Waiver can be requested on any felony under five possible sections. Under Indiana Code §§ 31-30-3-2 through 31-30-3-6, the juvenile court must find both probable cause and that it would be in the “best interests of the child and of the safety and welfare of the community” to be tried as an adult. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are mandatory waiver sections with a presumption of those “best interests” that must be rebutted by the respondent. Sections 2 and 3 are discretionary with part of the State’s burden being to prove the best interests.

Juvenile court has the ability to maintain jurisdiction until the child reaches the age of twenty-one unless sooner discharged. Therefore, juveniles are on probation for as long as the court deems appropriate. There are no orders of “six months” here or “eighteen months” there.

The term of probation lasts until the court feels that the juvenile has been adequately treated and rehabilitated. Remember, the court is the gatekeeper.

Treatment and programs range from nothing (time-served is the adult terminology) up to being committed to the Indiana Department of Correction (to be placed at a juvenile-only facility.) In between those extremes come a variety of services that will vary county to county. The services will attempt to address parts of the juvenile’s life that need help. It could be substance abuse treatment, counseling and therapy, education, and any other area that is felt will help rehabilitate the child. These goals can be accomplished from in-home treatment, community-based services, or secured treatment facilities.

While only a cursory review of the system, hopefully this helps give you the basics of delinquency matters.•

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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT