136 N.E.3d 620
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- In January 2019 the State filed a delinquency petition alleging D.P. committed an act in 2012 (when he was 16) that would be child molesting as a Class B felony if committed by an adult. The State simultaneously moved to waive juvenile jurisdiction to adult court.
- At a January hearing D.P. (now in his early 20s) indicated he would admit the allegations but the court would not accept an admission while the waiver motion was pending; the court approved filing the petition.
- In February 2019 D.P. moved to dismiss, arguing the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he was over twenty-one when the petition was filed and the juvenile statutes apply only to persons who are children.
- The juvenile court denied the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to consider waiver because the alleged conduct occurred when D.P. was a juvenile and the prosecutor properly sought waiver under the juvenile code; the court certified the order for interlocutory appeal.
- On appeal the court affirmed, reasoning the juvenile court properly retained jurisdiction to determine whether to waive the matter to adult court and distinguishing M.C. v. State because no adjudication or disposition had yet occurred in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.P.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a delinquency petition filed after the alleged offender turned 21 for conduct committed while under 18 | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because person was over 21 when petition filed; statutes limit juvenile jurisdiction to children and thus proceedings filed after age 21 are invalid (relying on M.C.) | Juvenile court has jurisdiction to hear and decide a prosecutor's motion to waive to adult court where the alleged act occurred while the defendant was a juvenile; if juvenile court lacked jurisdiction adult court would still have jurisdiction and statutes are best read to avoid leaving offenses unpunished | Court held juvenile court had jurisdiction to determine waiver; affirmed denial of dismissal (distinguishing M.C. because no adjudication/disposition occurred) |
Key Cases Cited
- M.C. v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (addressed juvenile-court jurisdiction when petition filed after petitioner was no longer a child)
- Twyman v. State, 459 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 1984) (both juvenile and criminal courts may have subject-matter jurisdiction over the same underlying conduct; age affects juvenile jurisdiction and limits personal jurisdiction in criminal court)
- C.C. v. State, 907 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (courts should avoid statutory readings that would leave offenses unpunished)
- Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2002) (principles for statutory interpretation: give clear statutory language its plain meaning and ascertain legislative intent when ambiguous)