L.O.C. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 07A01-1606-JV-1300

On August 27, 2015, high school student A.B. was found with a baggie containing 59 pink pills identified as paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil), a legend drug.
Another student reported seeing L.C. hand a plastic bag of pills to A.B. during class; both students initially denied possession when questioned by the principal.
L.C. gave a written statement saying he had been holding the pills for A.B., having received them two days earlier from L.C.’s cousin and returned them to A.B. at school.
The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging conduct that would be Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a legend drug if committed by an adult.
At the fact-finding hearing A.B. testified he gave the pills to L.C. and that L.C. returned them; the juvenile court found L.C. knew he possessed pills and was aware of a high probability they required a prescription, and adjudicated L.C. delinquent.
L.C. appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence on the knowledge element and (2) effectiveness of trial counsel for several omissions (no cross-examination of A.B., no testimony from L.C. or his mother, and failure to argue lack of knowledge).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that L.C. knowingly possessed a legend drug	State: circumstantial evidence (A.B.’s testimony, concealment, L.C.’s statement) supports inference L.C. was aware of a high probability pills required a prescription	L.C.: evidence insufficient on knowledge; trial court misstated standard by referencing "high probability" rather than beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: evidence sufficient; "high probability" language concerned the mens rea element (knowingly), not the burden of proof; affirm adjudication
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Strickland standard applies; counsel’s omissions are not shown deficient or prejudicial on the record	L.C.: counsel failed to cross-examine A.B., failed to present L.C. or mother, and failed to argue lack of knowledge	Court: applied Strickland, found record inadequate to show counsel was deficient or prejudice to L.C.; claim fails

A.B. v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 2008) (State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency adjudications)
K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review in juvenile cases)
Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
S.T. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. 2002) (applied Strickland standard in juvenile delinquency context)
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2000) (prejudice inquiry and standards for ineffective assistance claims)