ILNews

Judges reverse teen’s conspiracy to commit murder conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed Paul Henry Gingerich’s conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder, finding the Kosciusko juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the then-12-year-old’s request for a continuance of a waiver hearing.

In April 2010, Gingerich and 15-year-old Colt Lundy shot and killed Lundy’s stepfather and then took off for Arizona. Police apprehended them in Illinois. At the time of the murder, Gingerich was a little over 5-feet tall, weighed 80 pounds and was a sixth grader.

At the April 22, 2010, probable cause hearing, the court set a hearing on the state’s motion to waive juvenile jurisdiction for April 29. Gingerich’s attorney sought a continuance to allow time to prepare witnesses, obtain a psychological evaluation of Gingerich, and review exhibits and reports, but the trial court denied the motion for continuance.

At the hearing, Gingerich’s attorney again sought a continuance, which was again denied. A county probation officer testified that there was only one facility that could take a juvenile convicted of homicide. The officer misstated that there is no parole in the juvenile Department of Corrections and other facts pertaining to juvenile law. Gingerich and Lundy were waived into adult court and Gingerich eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency and the Children’s Law Center filed amicus curiae briefs in the case. The MCPDA in its brief argued that a full investigation is a necessary and statutorily required prerequisite to a wavier, and that juveniles in Marion County who face being waved into adult court typically get at least three months to investigate and prepare for the hearing. The CLC also argued that juveniles should have time to prepare for a waiver hearing.

The state claimed, among other things, that Gingerich hasn’t shown that he was prejudiced by the denial of his continuance, and that by pleading guilty, Gingerich “tacitly admit[ted] that he could not have met his statutory burden.”

“We note that Ind. Code § 31-30-3-4 implicates valid liberty interests held by Gingerich. As he notes, Ind. Code § 31-30-1-1 vests ‘exclusive original jurisdiction’ in the juvenile court over a child who is alleged to, before becoming eighteen years of age, commit a delinquent act,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court. “Also, Ind. Code § 31-30-3-4 provides for a ‘full investigation and hearing’ prior to juvenile jurisdiction being waived.

“Thus, at the outset of the filing of the delinquency petition Gingerich enjoyed the panoply of protections associated with being tried in the juvenile system, and he was entitled to a full investigation and hearing prior to the court ordering waiver. Accordingly, Gingerich’s liberty was at stake when the State moved to waive Gingerich into adult court.”

The judges ordered further proceedings on the matter consistent with their opinion, Paul Henry Gingerich v. State of Indiana, 43A05-1101-CR-27.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Unconstitutional
    Most prosecutors are idiots and seek to convict at any cost without regard to guilt or innocence. Prosecutors lie, manufacture evidence, withhold evidence benefical to defendants even when they know that defendants are innocent, all under protection from lawsuits and prosecution. In effect prosecutors are above the law! WAKE UP AMERICA AND STAND UP AND SPEAK UP FOR JUSTICE

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT