ILNews

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.


 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT