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

K.F. is a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for acts that would be burglary (class B felony), theft (class D felony), and carrying a handgun without a license (class A misdemeanor).
The home from which items were stolen belonged to Mother and Delashmit; K.F. had run away earlier and the locks and garage keypad were changed before the burglary.
Police recovered K.F.’s clothes bag in William’s house; other stolen items were never recovered.
K.F. admitted to Mother at the police station that she went to the house on the burglary date to get her things but claimed nothing was stolen at that time.
The juvenile court dismissed conspiracy to commit burglary (Count 2) and later found true findings on burglary (Count 1), theft (Count 3), and handgun carrying (Count 4); Count 5 was discontinued.
The dispositional order later mis-stated the findings, prompting remand to correct disposition and CCS entries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of burglary evidence	State argues entry was unauthorized; burglary proven.	K.F. contends she burglarized her own home and “of another” element not satisfied.	Sufficient evidence supports burglary true finding.
Sufficiency of theft evidence	State showed unauthorized control over property taken from the home.	K.F. argues she only took her own clothes; no proof of unauthorized control of others’ property.	Sufficient evidence supports theft true finding.
Sufficiency of carrying handgun without a license	State alleges possession of a gun in the house; evidence shows guns were in house.	No proof of actual or constructive possession or knowledge of presence; not shown.	Insufficient evidence to support carrying handgun without a license; reversed true finding.
Admission of K.F.’s statement to Mother at the police station	Admission falls under admissible statements; juvenile waiver statute not triggered.	Statement should be excluded under juvenile waiver requirements and hearsay rules.	Admissible as non-interrogation custodial statement; nevertheless the waiver issue not triggered; later analysis discusses hearsay.
Admission of Mother’s statements to police	Officer testimony about what Mother said was admissible.	Hearsay; not admissible as substantive evidence; may be harmless error.	Officer testimony constitutes hearsay; admission was harmless error due to cumulative nature.

Fuller v. State, 875 N.E.2d 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unauthorized entry into dwelling where entry is not allowed supports burglary finding)
Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (‘of another person’ element satisfied by unauthorized entry)
Ellyson v. State, 603 N.E.2d 1369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (entry into dwelling may be unauthorized even if co-possessor)
R.L.H. v. State, 738 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence may support theft conviction)
D.M. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2011) (juvenile waiver statute requirements for admissibility of statements)