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.