ILNews

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT