SG v. State
956 N.E.2d 668
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- S.G., a seventeen-year-old, was alleged to have received Sparks's stolen iPhone, a Class D felony if an adult.
- The iPhone was stolen from Sparks in a school restroom; a surveillance review pointed to S.G. as a possible involved student.
- S.G. was brought to the Principal's office at the Principal's request; Officer Guynn was present but did not question him.
- The Principal asked S.G. one question about the phone and then suspended him; Miranda warnings were never given.
- There was a delinquency petition based on receiving stolen property; restitution was proposed at $501.00 with probationary conditions.
- The juvenile court found S.G. delinquent, ordered restitution, and set a restitution-work program; S.G. appealed on evidentiary, sufficiency, and restitution grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements during school questioning | S.G. argues custodial interrogation without Miranda/waiver. | State contends not custodial; school setting and officer present do not trigger Miranda. | Not custodial; statements admissible. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property | S.G. knew the phone was stolen and disposed of it. | Knowledge of theft not proven or disposal not voluntary. | Sufficient evidence; knowledge inferred from possession and disposal. |
| Restitution amount and process | Restitution reflects Sparks's actual loss. | Amount exceeds actual loss; improper basis. | Reversed; remanded for determination of actual loss and ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.D. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 425 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (juvenile custodial analysis; consult guardian before statements)
- G.J. v. State, 716 N.E.2d 475 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (juvenile interrogation not custodial when questioned by school dean)
- S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (custodial vs. school-based questioning; guardian consulted)
- C.D. v. Mooresville Bd. of Educ., 947 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (custody and school setting; educational purpose shown)
- Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (factors for voluntariness of statements)
- Gibson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1994) (knowledge element in receiving stolen property)
- Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136 (Ind. 2010) (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances)
- In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 2004) (juvenile rights in delinquency proceedings)