Gingerich v. State
Citation | 979 N.E.2d 694 |
Decision Date | 11 December 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 43A05–1101–CR–27.,43A05–1101–CR–27. |
Parties | Paul Henry GINGERICH, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Monica Foster, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Marsha L. Levick, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, PA, Joel M. Schumm, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae.
Robert J. Hill, Victoria L. Bailey, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Marion County Public Defender Agency.
Erin Davies, Children's Law Center, Inc., Covington, KY, Michael Jenuwine, Notre Dame Legal Aid Clinic, South Bend, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Children's Law Center, Inc., National Juvenile Defender Center, and Campaign for Youth Justice.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Paul Henry Gingerich appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder as a class A felony.1 Gingerich raises five issues, one of which we find dispositive and which we revise and restate as whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied Gingerich's request for a continuance of the waiver hearing.2 We reverse and remand.
In April 2010, Gingerich was twelve years and two months old, stood about 5' 2?, weighed about eighty pounds, and was a sixth grader at Wawassee Middle School. On April 20, 2010, Gingerich and Colt Lundy shot and killed Philip Danner, Lundy's stepfather, and they were subsequently apprehended in Peru, Illinois, while traveling to Arizona.
On April 22, 2010, the court held a detention/probable cause hearing in which Gingerich was represented by Thomas W. Earhart. Detention of Gingerich was authorized, the State requested to file a delinquency petition, the court authorized the filing of the petition, and the State filed a motion to waive juvenile jurisdiction pursuant to Ind.Code § 31–30–3–4. That same day, the court set the matter for hearing on April 29, 2010. On April 27, 2010, Gingerich filed a motion to continue the waiver hearing, stating that "such hearing date does not allow Counsel ... sufficient time to prepare for such hearing" and noted specifically that "counsel needs time to (a) identify and interview potential witness[es] on behalf of [Gingerich]; (b) obtain and review exhibits for presentation; [and] (c) conduct its own investigations as it has not received from the State any witness or client statements, autopsy reports, coroner reports, ballistic reports or forensic reports." Appellant's Appendix at 10. Gingerich's counsel also stated in the motion that he "believes that it is in the best interest of his client that a psychological and/or psychiatric evaluation be done," that this could not be accomplished prior to the hearing, and concluded that "without additional time, the matters to be determined at the waiver hearing cannot be completely and fairly heard and determined." Id.
On April 29, 2010, the court denied Gingerich's motion to continue and held a waiver hearing. At the outset, Gingerich renewed his motion to continue the hearing, noting that "we are at a critical stage in these proceedings," that "[t]he decisions made by the Court today are going to be life altering," and that "we do not feel that we have had adequate time to prepare for this waiver hearing...." Waiver Transcript at 3.3 Gingerich noted that he had had only four business days to conduct any investigation,4 had not received any discovery materials from the State, and that because of this short timeframe he had not interviewed witnesses, obtained exhibits, done depositions, or obtained third party discovery. He also stated that he felt it important "to have evaluations done by the Bowen Center with respect particularly to our client and in talking with them, they indicated that once an appointment is made, it might be two or three weeks until they could do the evaluation and make the report." Id. at 4. Gingerich also argued that additional time to prepare was critical because, pursuant to statute, the burden of proof had shifted from the State to Gingerich. He also argued that a continuance would not result in prejudice or detriment to the State or other parties. The court denied the motion, stating:
[T]he reasons for the continuance go mainly to the underlying case and such discovery will be had if this Court does waive juvenile jurisdiction. Such discovery will be had if this Court does not waive juvenile jurisdiction. The full investigation is to this Court, the Court finds that it has been seven days since probable cause was filed and the petition was authorized to be filed....
The hearing proceeded and Karen Wenzelmaier, a neighbor of Gingerich, testified that she had been Gingerich's neighbor for eleven years, that her son frequently played with him, that she had never had problems with Gingerich, that she had never witnessed any violent acts or acts of cruelty or noticed character flaws which would make her feel uneasy, and that she felt that her children were safe being around Gingerich. She also testified that she believed he was a well-adjusted person and that the charges were out of character for him. Henry Witthoeft, who was Gingerich's maternal grandfather, testified that the two had a wonderful relationship and that he believed Gingerich was a "wholesome young man with a good attitude...." Id. at 37. Dave Yoder, Gingerich's uncle, testified that he would visit with Gingerich three times a month and that he believed Gingerich was an average twelve-year-old who was courteous and respectful.
The State called Robert Babcock, the Chief Probation Officer of the Kosciusko County Probation Department responsible for both the juvenile and adult divisions. Babcock testified that he was familiar with the different dispositional alternatives in both the juvenile and adult divisions. When asked whether it was in the boys' best interests and the safety and welfare of the community that they remain in the juvenile justice system, Babcock testified:5
Id. at 60–63. When asked about the dispositional alternatives in the adult criminal system, Babcock testified: Id. at 63–64. Babcock also testified that the Department of Correction identifies the facility that best serves treatment of defendants given the nature of their offenses.
After Babcock offered his opinion that Lundy should be waived into the adult criminal system, the prosecutor asked him his opinion regarding Gingerich, to which he responded:
Again, if I would take the murder allegation out of there, he would be a perfect candidate for the juvenile system, but when you put in the murder allegation, and again we're limited in what we can do in the juvenile system, and the adult system in forty-five years to sixty-five years would give him the opportunity to have the treatment that's necessary for him and in the long term period versus the short term in the juvenile system.
Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. State
...a few extra protections. See generally In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1, 30–31, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) ; Gingerich v. State , 979 N.E.2d 694, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. Many of these protections, however, are limited to the juvenile system and do not carry over when chil......
-
Harris v. State
...life, liberty, or property without the ‘process’ or ‘course of law’ that is due, that is, a fair proceeding.’ " Gingerich v. State , 979 N.E.2d 694, 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Pigg v. State , 929 N.E.2d 799, 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied ), trans. denied . "Once it is deter......
-
Scott v. State
...2012), trans. denied. Once a determination is made that the Due Process Clause applies, "the question remains what process is due." Id. at 710. Whether a party was denied due process is a question of law reviewed de novo. Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015); R.R. v. State,......
-
James v. State
...to conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, with five years suspended to probation Gingerich v. State , 979 N.E.2d 694, 701 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Outcry over Gingerich's prosecution in adult court led to enactment of "Paul's Law"—the alternative juvenile sente......