Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), at public schools requires police involvement, and so when school officials alone meet with students Miranda warnings are not required.After D.Z. was called into the office of the assistant principal of a high school he confessed to writing sexual graffiti on the school’s boys-bathroom walls. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that D.Z. committed criminal mischief and harassment. The juvenile court found that D.Z. had committed criminal mischief. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that D.Z.’s statements to the assistant principal should have been suppressed because D.Z. was under custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the criminal-mischief adjudication, holding that D.Z. was not entitled to Miranda warnings because he was interviewed only by a school official - not by police. View "D.Z. v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was when public school students are entitled to Miranda warnings at school.B.A., who was thirteen years old, was escorted from a school bus and questioned in a vice-principal’s office in response to a bomb threat on a bathroom wall. Three officers wearing police uniforms hovered over B.A. and encouraged him to confess. B.A. moved to suppress the evidence from his interview, arguing that he was entitled to Miranda warnings because he was under custodial interrogation and officers failed to secure waiver of his Miranda rights under Indiana’s juvenile waiver statute, Ind. Code 31-32-5-1. The juvenile court denied the motion and found B.A. delinquent for committing false reporting and institutional criminal mischief. The Supreme Court reversed B.A.’s delinquency adjudications, holding (1) B.A. was in police custody and under police interrogation when he made the incriminating statements; and (2) therefore, B.A.’s statements should have been suppressed under both Miranda and Indiana’s juvenile waiver statute. View "B.A. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed T.H.’s adjudication as a delinquent but remanded the case to the trial court to modify its records to show that T.H. committed an act that would be criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor.The State filed a petition alleging that T.H. committed a delinquent act that would be criminal mischief, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. The trial court found that T.H. committed criminal mischief that caused at least $750 in loss, which would be a Class A misdemeanor, and adjudicated T.H. delinquent. The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication but remanded the case, holding that no reasonable fact-finder could find the element of loss of at least $750 proven beyond a reasonable doubt. View "T.H. v. State" on Justia Law

Under Indiana Code section 31-25-2-5, no family case manager at the Indiana Department of Child Services can oversee more than 17 children at a time who are receiving services. The statute does not require the Department to perform any specific, ministerial acts for achieving that number. Price, a family case manager, filed a proposed class action. She alleged that her caseload was 43 children and sought an “order mandating or enjoining [D]efendants to take all necessary steps to comply with [Section 5].” The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Price’s claim prior to class certification. Judicial mandate is an extraordinary remedy—available only when the law imposes a clear duty upon a defendant to perform a specific, ministerial act and the plaintiff is clearly entitled to that relief. The statute at issue does not impose a specific, ministerial duty. View "Price v. Indiana Department of Child Services; Director of Indiana Department of Child Services" on Justia Law

J.D.M. was adjudicated a delinquent for committing child molestation which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a Class C felony. The juvenile court ordered placement of J.D.M. at the Wernle Youth and Family Treatment Center. Prior to J.D.M.’s release from Wernle, the juvenile court issued an order that required J.D.M. to register as a sex offender. J.D.M. appealed, arguing that the statutory prerequisites for placing a juvenile on the sex offender registry were not met. The Supreme Court reversed the order requiring J.D.M. to register as a sex offender, holding that the juvenile court could not order J.D.M. to register as a sex or violent offender prior to his discharge from Wernle. Remanded. View "J.D.M. v. State" on Justia Law

In 2010, three teenagers, including sixteen-year-old Martez Brown, robbed two victims in their home. The victims were killed during the robbery. Brown was found guilty of two counts of murder and one count of robbery. The trial court ultimately sentenced Brown to an aggregate sentence of 150 years, the same sentence imposed on Brown’s cohorts. The Supreme Court revised the 150-year sentence received by Brown, holding that Brown’s sentence “foreswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal,” and concluded that Brown should be sentenced to an enhanced sentence to a total aggregate sentence of eighty years imprisonment. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

In 2010, three teenagers, including sixteen-year-old Martez Brown and fifteen-year-old Defendant, robbed two victims in their home. The victims were killed during the robbery. Defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder and one count of robbery. The trial court ultimately sentenced Defendant to an aggregate sentence of 150 years, the same sentence imposed on Brown. The Supreme Court revised the 150-year sentence received by Brown and similarly exercised its constitutional authority to revise Defendant’s sentence, holding that Defendant’s sentence “foreswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal” and concluding that Defendant should total aggregate sentence of eight-five years imprisonment. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

I.T., who admitted to conduct that would be a Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult, was ordered by the trial court to undergo therapeutic polygraph examinations. During one of those exams, I.T. admitted to molesting two other children. Based on those statements, the State filed a new delinquency petition. I.T. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, which bars a child’s statement to a mental health evaluator from being admitted into evidence to prove delinquency, barred the State’s evidence. The trial court granted the motion. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State may appeal a juvenile court order that suppresses evidence if doing so terminates the proceeding; and (2) the Statute’s limited immunity prohibits both use and derivative use of a juvenile’s statements to prove delinquency. View "State v. I.T." on Justia Law

Appellant, a juvenile, admitted to conduct that would constitute felony sexual battery if committed by an adult. The trial court subsequently ordered Appellant to register as a sex offender. Appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the court's finding that he was likely to repeat a sex offense. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a juvenile may only be ordered to register as a sex offender if, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court expressly finds by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is likely to commit another sex offense; and (2) the trial court erred in placing Appellant on the registry where its order was neither issued in connection with an evidentiary hearing, nor accompanied by any findings. View "N.L. v. State" on Justia Law

A school liaison officer intervened in a hallway scuffle between K.W. and another student. K.W. turned away from the officer's effort to handcuff him. K.W. was subsequently adjudicated delinquent for resisting law enforcement. K.W. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the officer was "lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties" as a law-enforcement officer. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court, albeit for different reasons than the court of appeals, holding that the evidence did not establish "force" beyond a reasonable doubt, and without evidence of a "forcible" resistance, K.W.'s delinquency adjudication could not be sustained. View "K.W. v. State" on Justia Law