SD v. State
937 N.E.2d 425
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- S.D., a juvenile, was interviewed regarding an alleged offense that would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.
- Prior to the interview, S.D. and his guardian had time to consult; the consultation occurred in a room with recording video cameras that both were aware of.
- S.D. confessed to touching J.B.'s vagina during the interrogation; the confession was later admitted at the delinquency adjudication.
- The juvenile court denied a suppression motion; the confession was admitted and S.D. was found delinquent.
- Indiana's juvenile waiver of rights statute requires meaningful consultation between the juvenile and custodian; the presence of cameras allegedly undermined privacy.
- The Court reversed, holding the confession inadmissible as fundamental error due to lack of meaningful consultation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the confession admission violated meaningful consultation requirements | S.D. contends video cameras prevented meaningful consultation. | State argues consultation occurred and waivers were voluntary. | Yes; confession admitted in custody without meaningful consultation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 346 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 1976) (juvenile rights require meaningful guardian consultation in waiver)
- Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (consultation must be meaningful; police presence undermines it)
- Cherrone v. State, 726 N.E.2d 251 (Ind.2000) (meaningful consultation framework and waiver analysis)
- A.A. v. State, 706 N.E.2d 259 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (custody and waiver considerations in juvenile statements)
- Fowler v. State, 483 N.E.2d 739 (Ind.1985) (privacy during consultation affects waiver validity)