ILNews

Teen has 1 adjudication overturned, must still pay restitution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A teenager adjudicated as delinquent after it was determined he was in a stolen car was able to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse one of his adjudications due to double jeopardy. But, the teen must still pay restitution to the victims of his crimes.

Police Officer Havis Harris spotted what she believed was a reported stolen Honda Accord and followed it into a gas station parking lot. When the car stopped, she saw at least three people “bail out” of the car and run away from the gas station. She radioed for back up, and Officer James Blythe, who was just a block away, set up a perimeter. He saw two males who matched Harris’ description walk by, so he stopped them. Harris watched the gas station’s surveillance video and confirmed the two stopped were involved. One of the teens stopped was C.H.

C.H. was adjudicated for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Class B misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle if committed by an adult. He was on probation at the time.

The juvenile court ordered he pay the owner of the Honda $500 in restitution and recommended all other probation orders be completed, including paying $500 in restitution to the victim of the C.H.’s previous crime.

C.H. appealed in C.H. v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1310-JV-904. The Court of Appeals rejected his claim that the stop by Blythe violated his federal or statute constitutional rights, noting Blythe had reasonable suspicion to stop him based on Harris’ description of the suspects. The judges also affirmed that he pay restitution. C.H. never raised any objection to the restitution orders when the juvenile court imposed them and, in fact, he affirmatively agreed to the imposition of restitution, Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote. His attorney said he had reviewed the probation department’s recommendations – which included restitution – and that C.H. was “in agreement with all of them” except two unrelated issues.

But the judges did reverse his adjudication for Class B misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle because the state used the same evidence to establish the essential elements of both offenses. They remanded for the court to vacate that adjudication.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT