W.B., III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 18A05-1602-JV-478

On June 19, 2015, an AR-15 was stolen from the Anderson home while the family was on vacation; surveillance identified three burglars including 16‑year‑old W.B.
W.B., Nehemiah Nash, and Jon Kerr sold the rifle to Christian Orebaugh for $1,000 and split proceeds; Nash and others testified accordingly.
Police recovered the AR-15 from Orebaugh’s residence while executing a warrant in an unrelated homicide investigation of Orebaugh.
The State petitioned to adjudicate W.B. a delinquent child for acts that would constitute Level 4 felony burglary, Level 5 felony dangerous possession of a firearm, and Class A misdemeanor theft.
At fact‑finding, the trial court admitted testimony about recovery of the rifle and adjudicated W.B. delinquent for Level 4 burglary and Level 5 dangerous possession; W.B. appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony about recovery of the AR‑15 (including context that recovery occurred during Orebaugh homicide investigation)	State: Evidence of recovery at Orebaugh’s house is relevant to show sale and corroborate witnesses	W.B.: Testimony was unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded under Evid. R. 403; mentioning Orebaugh’s murder inflames the court	Court: Admission not reversible; defendant failed to make the specific objection needed to overcome the judicial‑temperance presumption, so any error was harmless
Sufficiency to support Level 5 felony dangerous possession (requires prior adjudication)	State: Evidence showed W.B. possessed and sold the rifle; felony level depends on prior adjudication	W.B.: No proof at fact‑finding of any prior dangerous‑possession adjudication; thus Level 5 cannot be supported	Court: Insufficient evidence for Level 5; reduced the finding to a Class A misdemeanor and remanded

Beasley v. State, 46 N.E.3d 1232 (Ind. 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2013) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 2011) (judicial‑temperance presumption in bench trials and need for specific objection)
Coleman v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. 1990) (bench court presumed to rely only on admissible evidence)
Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (applying Evid. R. 403 balancing)
Jaramillo v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. 2005) (State may retry on enhancement after appellate reversal for insufficient evidence)
Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (discussing judicial notice and use of prior convictions to elevate charges)