N.L. v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 508
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Juvenile N.L. admitted conduct equivalent to D-felony sexual battery; placed in Resolute Treatment Facility and completed treatment, then moved to a group home.
- February hearing: State presented Resolute risk evaluation (ERASOR) showing a “moderate” recidivism risk (4–6%) reduced from 10%; clinicians testified risk could fall further with continued treatment and supports; N.L. had counsel and opposed registration.
- The court took the registry decision under advisement and continued the matter; subsequent review hearings occurred, but the March review did not resolve the registry issue on the record.
- May hearing: informal review without N.L.’s counsel; only the victim’s mother spoke; the court ordered registration but made no oral or written findings that clear and convincing evidence showed N.L. was likely to reoffend.
- Court of Appeals affirmed based on the February evidence and earlier informal review material; Indiana Supreme Court reviewed whether the statutory requirements for juvenile registration were met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (N.L.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile may be placed on sex-offender registry without an evidentiary hearing at which the juvenile can challenge evidence | The registry order lacked an evidentiary hearing requirement: continuations must still be evidentiary and afford opportunity to contest evidence | The February evidentiary hearing and accumulated treatment/review materials supplied sufficient basis for registration | Trial courts must hold an evidentiary hearing (rules of evidence apply) before ordering juvenile registration; continuations must also be evidentiary with counsel present |
| Whether the court must make express findings by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is likely to reoffend | The court made no express finding; appellate review is impossible without an explicit, clear-and-convincing finding | The State argued the record (moderate risk reports and review materials) sufficed to infer the required finding | A court must expressly find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the juvenile is likely to reoffend before ordering registration |
| Whether informal review proceedings or prior reports can substitute for evidence admitted at an evidentiary hearing | Prior informal review materials are insufficient because juvenile lacked opportunity to challenge them when admitted | The State contended those materials and prior testimony justified registration | Information from informal review hearings cannot replace evidence actually admitted at an evidentiary hearing where the juvenile had counsel and opportunity to contest it |
| Appropriate remedy for deficient hearing and lack of findings | Vacate the registration and remand for an evidentiary hearing and express findings | The State favored affirmance based on existing record | Reversed and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing and an express clear-and-convincing finding based only on evidence admitted at that hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2010) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- J.C.C. v. State, 897 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. 2008) (juvenile registration requires an individualized evidentiary hearing and clear-and-convincing proof)
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) (discussing purposes and effects of sex-offender registration)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (registration's public-safety purpose and collateral consequences)
- Estate of Reasor v. Putnam Cnty., 635 N.E.2d 153 (Ind. 1994) (clear-and-convincing standard applied when greater certainty is required)
- Z.H. v. State, 850 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (recognizing evidentiary-hearing requirement for juvenile registration)
- B.W. v. State, 909 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (upholding registration in part based on a juvenile’s moderate risk assessment)