State of Indiana v. I.T.
2014 Ind. LEXIS 193
| Ind. | 2014Background
- I.T. admitted conduct that could be Class B felony child molesting if adult.
- Probation conditioned on treatment for juveniles with sexual behavior problems, including polygraph exams.
- During therapy, I.T. admitted molesting two other children; police and DCS investigated; victim and I.T. were interviewed.
- State filed a new delinquency petition based on I.T.’s statements to his therapist.
- Trial court suppressed the statements as prohibited evidence under the Juvenile Mental Health Statute; the State appealed.
- Indiana Supreme Court held the State may appeal a juvenile court order that suppresses evidence and that the statute provides both use and derivative use immunity, leading to affirmance of the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State has authority to appeal the juvenile court’s order. | State contends it can appeal because the order suppresses evidence, effectively terminating the proceeding. | Court held juvenile orders are not appealable unless the statute authorizes; here, the order suppressed evidence. | Yes; the State could appeal the suppression order. |
| Whether the Juvenile Mental Health Statute provides use and derivative use immunity. | Statute provides use immunity only and cannot bar derivative use. IT’s statements were used to obtain related evidence. | Statute should be interpreted to avoid self-incrimination, potentially providing derivative use immunity. | Statute construed to provide both use and derivative use immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972) (derivative-use immunity required to prevent self-incrimination)
- Caito, 459 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 1984) (use and derivative-use immunity discussed in Indiana context)
- Brown v. State, 725 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2000) (implications of use-immunity in statutory context)
- Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 695 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. 1998) (saving construction to maintain constitutionality)
- T.W. v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (use of juvenile statements in treatment for non-delinquency purposes)