D.D.B. v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9704-JV-257,49A02-9704-JV-257 |
| Parties | D.D.B., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appellant, D.D.B., appeals his adjudication as a delinquent child. The court concluded that he had committed Theft, 1 a Class D felony if committed by an adult.
We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Three issues are presented upon appeal, which we restate as follows:
(1) Whether D.D.B.'s constitutional right to testify in his own behalf was waived following a meaningful consultation with his guardian ad litem.
(2) Whether counsel for D.D.B. was ineffective by failing to interview potentially exculpatory witnesses.
(3) Whether sufficient evidence supports the delinquency adjudication.
On September 20, 1996, Derrick Lyell (Lyell), a student at North Central High School in Indianapolis, observed D.D.B. pick up a backpack belonging to another student, Sara Berghoff, and walk upstairs. The backpack contained various personal items, including a Spanish/English translator. Lyell reported the incident to Deputy Coraz. Subsequently, Coraz apprehended D.D.B. and found him to be in possession of the Spanish/English translator. D.D.B. was arrested and transported to juvenile detention.
During the evidentiary hearing upon the merits, D.D.B.'s attorney called on the youth to testify in his own defense. However, the guardian ad litem appointed for D.D.B. concluded that it was not in the child's best interest to participate, and thereby refused to allow him to testify. The record contains no indication that D.D.B. and the guardian ad litem discussed this decision.
Because D.D.B. did not effectively waive his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf, 2 he must be afforded a new fact finding hearing. I.C. 31-6-7-3, repealed by P.L. 1-1997, § 157, and its successor provision, 3 protects juveniles by requiring a meaningful consultation between a child and a specified individual before the child's constitutional rights may be waived. Hickman v. State (1995) Ind.App., 654 N.E.2d 278, 281. This condition is fulfilled upon " 'actual consultation of a meaningful nature or by the express opportunity for such consultation, which is then forsaken in the presence of the proper authority by the juvenile, so long as the juvenile knowingly and voluntarily waives his constitutional rights.' " Id. (). The State bears the burden to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Id.
We note that waiver of one of the child's constitutional rights does not constitute waiver of all of the child's constitutional rights. The provisions of I.C. 31-6-7-3 must be observed with respect to each individual constitutional right.
In the present case, no meaningful consultation occurred between D.D.B. and the guardian ad litem with regard to the decision to testify. In fact, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...rest of his life.’ " Id. (quoting Patton v. State , 588 N.E.2d 494, 496 (Ind. 1992) ).[22] For example, we held in D.D.B. v. State , 691 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), that, in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, "no meaningful consultation occurred between D.D.B. and the guardian ad ......
-
Bryant v. State
...with a parent or guardian. Our juvenile waiver of rights statute requires actual consultation of a meaningful nature. D.D.B. v. State, 691 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). Moreover, the consultation can be meaningful only in the absence of police pressure. Washington v. State, 456 N.E.2d ......
-
GB v. State, 45A03-9810-JV-436.
...consultation between a child and a specified individual before the child's constitutional rights may be waived. See D.D.B. v. State, 691 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). Meaningful consultation is attained upon "actual consultation of a meaningful nature or by the express opportunity for ......