Judges uphold 11-year-old’s reckless homicide adjudication

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a Morgan County boy’s adjudication for shooting his younger brother while the two were home alone. The 11-year-old claimed that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting his statement to the investigating officer at the evidentiary hearing.

In June 2011, N.B. was left home alone with his 6-year-old brother, A.F., and told by their mom if they cleaned their room, they’d have pizza for dinner. A.F. refused to clean their shared room, so N.B. got his stepfather’s .22 caliber rifle from the master bedroom and again told A.F. to clean their room. The boy refused again, so N.B. pulled the trigger, fatally shooting A.F. between the eyes.

N.B. called 911 and told dispatchers and police that A.F. shot himself. The police found some discrepancies in his answers and asked his mother for permission to re-interview N.B. An autopsy revealed it impossible for A.F. to have shot himself.  At the police station, the detective gave the mother and N.B. papers to read setting forth N.B.’s rights. They signed the papers and were later given 20 minutes in private to discuss whether N.B. should speak to the detective.

N.B. later admitted to shooting A.F. This statement was introduced at the evidentiary hearing, at which N.B. faced murder and reckless homicide charges. The judge adjudicated him on the reckless homicide charge and placed the boy in the Children’s Bureau Program.

N.B. argued on appeal that the procedural safeguards for the waiver of a juvenile’s constitutional rights weren’t followed as dictated in Indiana Code 31-32-5-1. He claimed his mother wasn’t an appropriate custodian to the joint waiver because she was the mother of the victim and she faced a criminal charge as a result of the shooting. N.B. also argued that his waiver wasn’t knowing or voluntary because he signed the waiver before being allowed to have meaningful consultation with his mother.

The judges rejected his arguments, finding that his mother faced the neglect of a dependent resulting in death charge regardless of how A.F. was shot. In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that the parent of an alleged juvenile delinquent does not have a conflict of interest by virtue of being a parent of the that juvenile and the victim.

“The totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of N.B. supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote, agreeing with the trial court that while the signing of the waiver should happen after the juvenile and parent have a chance for meaningful consultation, under the facts of this case, N.B. impliedly waived his rights after engaging in consultation with his mother.



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. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.