ILNews

Statute doesn't authorize dismissal of charges

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even if the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded the trial court violated statute by failing to set a juvenile delinquency hearing within the 60-day time limit, the appellate court doesn't believe the statute authorizes dismissal of the charges as the defendant argues.

In J.D. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0901-JV-40, J.D. argued under Indiana Code Section 31-37-11-2(b), his charges for committing what would have been Class D felony theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult should have been dismissed because his hearing wasn't set until after a 60-day timeframe within the statute.

Section 2(b) says if a child is not in detention and a petition has been filed, a hearing must be commenced not later than 60 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the petition is filed.

After the state filed the petition Aug. 11, 2008, that J.D. was a delinquent child, he was released to his parents on supervised home release. He was later placed with the Indiana Department of Correction in another cause. At a Sept. 8 conference, a denial hearing was scheduled for Dec. 2; J.D. didn't object to the date, which was more than 60 days after the petition was filed.

The Court of Appeals compared Section 2(b) to the speedy-trial provisions of Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), using caselaw on the rule to help interpret the subsection. Because J.D. didn't object to the hearing set outside a 60-day time limit, he waived his rights under Indiana Code Section 31-37-11-2(b), the appellate court determined.

Even if he didn't waive his rights, it isn't clear under the statute that a dismissal would be warranted. The only section of Indiana Code Chapter 31-37-11 that calls for discharge is Section 9, which isn't applicable in the instant case. Section 7 says if the court fails to meet the applicable time limits, a child in detention will be released to a parent or guardian.

But when a child isn't in detention, Section 7 is silent. However, that doesn't mean a violation of 2(b) requires outright dismissal.

"To the contrary, we fail to see why dismissal would be inappropriate for a child who is in detention, but somehow appropriate for a child who is not," wrote Judge Paul Mathias. "Without clear statutory authorization, we cannot say that a violation of the sixty-day limit of Section 2(b) required the trial court to dismiss the allegations that J.D. was a delinquent child."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT