B.T.E. v. State of Indiana, 82 N.E.3d 267

In late 2015 Seymour High School students B.T.E. and M.V. exchanged Facebook messages planning an attack on April 20, 2018, targeting students J.R. and G.M.; messages included violent threats, tactical discussion, and pipe‑bomb instructions.
Investigators found maps/diagrams (classroom seating chart with J.R. marked and a building map) and other writings in B.T.E.’s binder/home; police interviewed B.T.E. who acknowledged talk of shooting the school.
Juvenile petition filed January 26, 2016; amended petitions added counts including conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and attempted aggravated battery (Level 3 felonies if by an adult).
Fact‑finding hearing began April 27, 2016, was continued for business‑records issues, resumed May 24, 2016; court found B.T.E. true for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and attempted aggravated battery, but later the appellate panel reversed the attempted‑battery finding.
Sentence: probation until 18 with suspended commitment. Appeal raised: (1) motion to dismiss under I.C. § 31‑37‑11‑2 timing limits; (2) sufficiency of evidence for attempted aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery.

Issue	B.T.E.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Whether juvenile court erred denying motion to dismiss under I.C. § 31‑37‑11‑2 (hearing‑timing limits)	The hearing was held beyond the 60/90‑day limits; dismissal required	Appellant waived the timing objection by not objecting promptly; statute does not mandate discharge for missed § 2 deadline	Denial affirmed — § 31‑37‑11‑2 is directory; no automatic discharge required (K.G. precedent)
2a) Sufficiency: attempted aggravated battery — whether a "substantial step" was proven	Actions (maps, Facebook planning, pipe‑bomb research, soliciting D.H.) were mere preparation and did not amount to a substantial step toward aggravated battery	The maps, research, solicitations, and planning corroborated intent and constituted substantial steps	Reversed — evidence did not establish a substantial step beyond preparation; solicitation to a third party (D.H.) did not meet Ward three‑part test
2b) Sufficiency: conspiracy to commit aggravated battery — whether an agreement and overt act were proven	No independent evidence of agreement beyond co‑conspirator hearsay; insufficient to prove conspiracy	Facebook exchanges, the specific date, overt acts (maps, research, sharing bomb instructions), and M.V.’s threats support an agreement and overt acts	Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial evidence of agreement and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

K.G. v. State, 67 N.E.3d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (§ 31‑37‑11‑2 timing is directory; no discharge remedy read into §2)
Ward v. State, 528 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. 1988) (solicitation‑as‑attempt tests; three‑part test for solicitation as a substantial step)
Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (analysis of what constitutes a substantial step for attempt)
Collier v. State, 846 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (reversal where reconnoitering and possession of instruments still found insufficient as attempt)
Jackson v. State, 683 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. 1997) (substantial‑step standard and focus on acts performed)
M.T.V. v. State, 66 N.E.3d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and overt acts need not be substantial steps)
J.R.T. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of proof in juvenile delinquency adjudications)
Zickefoose v. State, 388 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 1979) (discussion of attempt liability and preventive policy considerations)