K.F. v. State, 961 N.E.2d 501

K.F., a 13-year-old juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for acts that would be burglary, theft, and carrying a handgun without a license if committed by an adult.
She ran away from her mother’s Marion County home on December 1, 2010; locks and garage keypad were changed, but the alarm code remained known to K.F.
On December 11-12, 2010, the house was burglarized with items including televisions, weapons, jewelry, and K.F.’s clothes taken; a bag of her clothes was later found at William’s house.
The State dismissed Count 2 (conspiracy to commit burglary); the court entered true findings on burglary (Count 1) and theft (Count 3) and disposed Count 5 as closed; the handgun charge (Count 4) was upheld then challenged on sufficiency.
K.F. also challenged the admission of her statement to her mother and of the officer’s testimony recounting Mother’s statements to police; remand was ordered to correct disposition and CCS entries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of burglary true finding	K.F. contends entry into her mother’s home was not unauthorized.	State argues entry was unauthorized due to changed locks and access denial.	Burglary upheld; entry unauthorized under prior decisions.
Sufficiency of theft true finding	K.F. asserts no evidence she exerted unauthorized control over others’ property.	State argues circumstantial evidence shows K.F. present and exerting control over property.	Theft affirmed; sufficient circumstantial evidence of unauthorized control.
Sufficiency of carrying a handgun without a license	State claims possession inferred from presence of guns in house and disappearance.	No proof of actual or constructive possession or knowledge of guns by K.F.	Carrying a handgun without a license reversed; insufficient evidence of possession or knowledge.
Admission of K.F.'s statement to Mother and officer testimony	Officer’s testimony about Mother’s statements was admissible hearsay under contemporary rules.	Officer testimony was improper hearsay and violated juvenile waiver/statutory safeguards.	Statement to Mother admissible; officer’s testimony deemed harmless error, though it was hearsay; remand to correct records.

E.D. v. State, 905 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (burglary sufficiency standards and review of evidence)
R.L.H. v. State, 738 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence admissible for conviction)
Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (entry into another’s dwelling can be unauthorized even if cohabitant)
Fuller v. State, 875 N.E.2d 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unauthorized entry when access was restricted despite co-possession rights)
Ellyson v. State, 603 N.E.2d 1369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (burglary elements and 'of another person' concept)
Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136 (Ind. 2010) (possession evidence in theft cases via circumstantial proof)
S.D. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (custody and interrogation definitions for juvenile waiver)
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (when Miranda/waiver statutes apply; not triggered by non-custodial juvenile contact)
G.J. v. State, 716 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (evidence waiver and custodial vs non-custodial scenarios)
S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (hearsay rules with custodial statements and cross-examination)