TW v. State
953 N.E.2d 1120
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- T.W. was adjudicated delinquent in 2009 for two counts of child molesting and became a DOC ward.
- DOC discharged T.W. on September 14, 2010; on September 22, 2010 the State petitioned to require registry and to evaluate risk.
- Two psychologists, Flores and Lange, were appointed September 24, 2010 to assess risk of reoffending.
- T.W.’s attorney did not receive notice that these evaluations would occur; objections to their testimony were raised.
- At a February 25, 2011 hearing the court heard Flores’s and Lange’s testimony; on February 28, 2011 it ordered ten-year sex offender registration based on clear and convincing evidence of high reoffense risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction | T.W. argues juvenile jurisdiction barred registry | State contends statute grants registry power to juvenile courts | Yes, court had jurisdiction |
| Whether testimony of Flores and Lange was admissible | Privilege and notice issues barred testimony | Exception to psychologist-patient privilege allowed testimony | Yes, admissible under statute and implied abrogation |
| Whether advance notice obligations affected admissibility | Attorney not informed of examinations | No reversible error given absence of prejudice | No reversible error |
| Whether juvenile registry finding aligns with statutory framework | Registry aligns with policy goals of public safety | Consistent with I.C. 11-8-8-4.5 and juvenile dispositions | Registry finding proper under statute |
| Whether the order adhered to due process and standards of proof | High risk must be shown clearly and convincingly | Record supported by expert testimony | Record supports ten-year registration |
Key Cases Cited
- K.J.P. v. State, 724 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (holding registry not an additional penalty for juveniles)
- In re G.B., 709 N.E.2d 352 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (juvenile rehabilitation goals; public safety concern recognized)
- Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) (adult offenders; ex post facto concerns re registry)
- C.E.K., II v. State, 928 N.E.2d 258 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (retains viability of K.J.P.; Wallace not overruling for juveniles)
- Ross v. Delaware County Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 661 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (psychologist-patient privilege abrogation in termination proceedings; persuasive)
- Shaw v. Shelby County Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 612 N.E.2d 557 (Ind.1993) (privilege abrogation rationale cited for termination context)