ILNews

Mom’s conviction due to child’s school absences upheld

Jennifer Nelson
August 30, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that an Indianapolis mother was not unlawfully denied a right to a jury trial on her Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance charge.

Dana Young’s child, M.D. had nine unexcused absences and six or seven tardies during the 2010-2011 school year. School counselors and both schools M.D. attended during that year attempted to contact Young about the absences. Young complained to school officials they wanted her “to be a superwoman” and that M.D. missed school one day because they overslept and M.D. missed the bus.

She was charged in June 2011 with the Class B misdemeanor. On Aug. 4, 2011, she signed a written advisement of her rights, which included her right to a jury trial. She did not request one within 10 days of the start of her trial as required by Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 22, which governs misdemeanors. A bench trial was conducted, and she was convicted.

Young argued that since she was charged with a misdemeanor that arose from an offense in the juvenile code, Indiana Code 31-32-6-7(b) should apply instead of Criminal Rule 22.

“Young, however, provides no authority supporting her position that Criminal Rule 22 does not apply to criminal misdemeanor charges arising from offenses set forth in the juvenile code, and we find none. Because Young was charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense, we conclude that Criminal Rule 22 applies to the instant matter,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in Dana Young v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1201-JM-18.

Young failed to request a jury trial after indicating she understood the time limitations set forth in the advisement of her rights, so she effectively waived her right to a jury trial, the judges held.   

 

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