937 N.E.2d 425
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- S.D. faced a juvenile delinquency adjudication for what would be Class C felony child molesting if an adult.
- Prior to interviewing S.D., he and his guardian had time to consult, but in a room with recording video cameras.
- S.D. contends the confession was admitted in violation of meaningful guardian consultation under Indiana's juvenile waiver statute.
- Detective Lawrence conducted a videotaped interview after a waiver of rights form was signed post-consultation.
- S.D. was found in custody when he confessed, after being interrogated for about 90 minutes in a room for roughly two and a half hours.
- The trial court admitted the confession; the appellate court reversed, finding fundamental error due to improper police presence and lack of meaningful consultation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of the confession was fundamental error | S.D. argues no meaningful consultation occurred due to videotaped setting. | State contends consultation occurred and waiver valid despite cameras. | Yes; confession admitted in error, reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 264 Ind. 448, 346 N.E.2d 584 (1976) (juvenile status applies to criminal procedure; meaningful consultation required)
- Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (consultation must be meaningful; privacy essential)
- Cherrone v. State, 726 N.E.2d 251 (Ind.2000) (meaningful consultation requirement; waiver hinges on meaningful exchange)
- Fowler v. State, 483 N.E.2d 739 (Ind.1985) (privacy during consultation matters; conduct of police present)
- A.A. v. State, 706 N.E.2d 259 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (custody determinations inform applicability of waiver protections)
- Luna v. State, 788 N.E.2d 832 (Ind.2003) (custody and freedom to leave key to custody assessment)
- Ackerman v. State, 774 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (Miranda advisements considered in custody analysis)
- Borton v. State, 759 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (general rule: statement by non-custodial juvenile may not implicate waiver protections)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.2006) (fundamental error standard for due process)