B.T.E. v. State of Indiana
108 N.E.3d 322
| Ind. | 2018Background
- Juvenile B.T.E. plotted a Columbine-style attack targeting classmates G.M. and J.R.; selected April 20, 2018 as the date.
- Over months he exchanged Facebook chats describing plans, claimed to research pipe bombs, debated weapons, and solicited classmates M.V. and D.H. to help or to kill J.R.
- He created diagrams of his school and a target classroom (seating chart with an “x”) and wrote a multi-page “death note” intended for distribution after his death.
- Police learned B.T.E. liked a Columbine page, interviewed him, and recovered chat logs, drawings, and the note. He was arrested and charged with attempted murder, attempted aggravated battery, and related conspiracies.
- The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent for attempted aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery; sentenced to probation with suspended commitment. The Court of Appeals reversed the attempt finding; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (B.T.E.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.T.E. took a "substantial step" to commit aggravated battery (attempt) | B.T.E.'s solicitations, diagrams, bomb research, and death note, viewed together, strongly corroborate intent and constitute substantial steps | Conduct was remote in time, amounted to mere preparation/jokes, and solicitations were not immediate enough to be an attempt | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of a substantial step; aggregate acts support attempt adjudication |
| Whether continuance violated juvenile speedy-hearing statute (I.C. §31-37-11-2) | Continuance did not deny a speedy hearing | N/A (claimed denial) | Affirmed (summary): no deprivation of a statutory speedy hearing |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery | Chats and solicitations show agreement and purposeful steps with accomplices | N/A (challenged sufficiency) | Affirmed (summary): sufficient evidence of conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Zickefoose v. State, 388 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 1979) (substantial-step requirement must be judged from all circumstances and strongly corroborative of intent)
- Van Cleave v. State, 674 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind. 1996) (attempt defined by substantial step analysis)
- Lewis v. State, 429 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 1981) (substantial-step is a fact question for the jury)
- Ward v. State, 528 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. 1988) (severity of offense affects how early conduct may qualify as attempt; discussed solicitation tests)
- Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (proximate acts in attempt analysis)
- Collier v. State, 846 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (proximity focus in attempt cases)
- Kemp v. State, 753 N.E.2d 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (attempt/proximity analysis)
- Sawyer, State v., 187 A.3d 377 (Vt. 2018) (contrasting jurisdictional attempt standards; illustrates substantial-step vs. "but for" approaches)