953 N.E.2d 1120
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- T.W., born December 1991, was adjudicated delinquent in 2009 for two counts of child molesting (Class C felonies if adult).
- He became a ward of the Department of Correction and received counseling during confinement and after release.
- In September 2010 the DOC discharged him, and shortly after the State petitioned to require registration as a sex offender and to evaluate his reoffending risk.
- Two psychologists, Flores and Lange, were appointed to evaluate him in September 2010, without clear indication of defense notice.
- A hearing occurred on February 25, 2011; T.W. objected to the psychologists’ testimony based on timing and psychologist-patient privilege, but objections were overruled.
- On February 28, 2011 the court found clear and convincing evidence of high risk of reoffending and ordered ten years of registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction to order registration | T.W. contends juvenile registry order exceeds juvenile code purpose | Court has jurisdiction under IC 11-8-4.5(b)(2) and related provisions | Court had subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Admissibility of psychologist testimony | Privilege prevented admission of Flores and Lange testimony | Sixth exception to privilege applies; testimony necessary to assess likelihood of reoffense | Testimony properly admitted; privilege abrogated for registry proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.B., 709 N.E.2d 352 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (juvenile rehabilitation focus; sex-offender context not precluded by juvenile aims)
- K.J.P. v. State, 724 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (sex offender registry not an additional punishment for juveniles)
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind.2009) (ex post facto concerns for adult offenders; does not govern juveniles in registry context)
- C.E.K, II v. State, 928 N.E.2d 258 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (rejected overrule of K.J.P. by Wallace as to juveniles; registry hearings allowed)
- Ross v. Delaware County Dpt. of Pub. Welfare, 661 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (psychologist-patient privilege considerations in termination proceedings abrogated by necessity)
- Shaw v. Shelby County Dpt. of Pub. Welfare, 612 N.E.2d 557 (Ind.1993) (abrogation framework for privileges in child welfare contexts)