C.H. v. State of Indiana
15 N.E.3d 1086
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- C.H. was a juvenile charged with two adjudications: criminal trespass (Class A misdemeanor) and unlawful entry of a motor vehicle (Class B misdemeanor) for actions related to Felipa Xique-Juarez's car.
- Officer Harris observed a recently stolen white Honda matching Felipa’s description and followed it to a gas station where four occupants fled.
- Officer Blythe stopped two males, including C.H., within minutes of the pursuit; Harris later identified the suspects via surveillance video and coordinated with Blythe.
- At the denial hearing, C.H. challenged Officer Harris’ identification testimony as fruit of a Terry stop, asserting Fourth Amendment and Indiana constitutional violations.
- Disposition proceedings resulted in C.H. receiving a suspended commitment, a restitution order of $500 to Felipa, a restitution work program, and a 9 p.m. curfew, among other terms.
- The juvenile court entered true findings on both offenses; on appeal, the court remanded regarding Double Jeopardy, but restitution challenges were deemed invited/waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of identification testimony | C.H. argues identification violated Fourth Amendment and Indiana Article I, Section 11. | State contends stop was reasonable under totality of circumstances; testimony was admissible. | Identification properly admitted; stop reasonable. |
| Double jeopardy under Richardson actual evidence test | Same evidentiary facts supported both adjudications; violation possible. | Evidence for each offense derived from distinct factual elements. | There is a reasonable possibility the same facts supported both; vacate lesser offense. |
| Restitution order | Restitution properly imposed; supported by victim evidence. | Arising errors/invited error; challenges to amount and process exist. | Restitution affirmed in part; remanded due to invited error/fundamental concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (Richardson actual evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Goldsberry v. State, 821 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (analyzes evidentiary impact in double jeopardy)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (three-factor balancing for Indiana Article I, §11 searches)
- McDermott v. State, 877 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (jurisdictional interest in stop for investigation)
- Smith v. State, 744 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2001) (Indiana constitutional analysis of searches/seizures)