Justices take juvenile sex offender case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted just one case on transfer last week, that of a Lawrence County teen who was ordered to register as a sex offender.

The state alleged that N.L. was a delinquent child for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. He convinced a 9-year-old boy to perform a sex act on him. N.L. later admitted to committing what would be Class D felony sexual battery if committed by an adult.

The probation department recommended that N.L. be required to register as a sex offender, even though his treatment facility thought the risk of reoffending had been lowered through treatment. The court ordered N.L. to register.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in a not-for-publication decision from November 2012. The judges concluded sufficient evidence supported the requirement, even though N.L. has made progress in addressing his sexual problems.

The justices declined to take 16 other cases including David Daniel Johnson, Jr., By Next Friend, Indiana Department of Child Services v. The Marion County Coroner's Office and City of Indianapolis, 48A02-1111-CT-1070. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that a claim for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the coroner and city brought an Indianapolis teenager who saw his deceased mother’s remains being dragged out of their apartment on a mattress because she was extremely obese should proceed before the trial court.



  • Courts
    What is the deal with our state and federal supreme courts? They get 17 cases and take one. They decline 16 cases, makes one wonder why we have supreme courts. They make good money for reviewing/deciding one case a week!

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.