State v. I.T.

• Citation: 4 N.E.3d 1139
• Decision Date: 12 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20S03–1309–JV–583.,20S03–1309–JV–583.
• Parties: STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Petitioner), v. I.T., Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

4 N.E.3d 1139

STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.I.T., Appellee (Respondent).

No. 20S03–1309–JV–583.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 12, 2014.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Peter D. Todd, Elkhart, IN, Donald R. Shuler, Goshen, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 20A03–1202–JV–76

RUSH, Justice.

More than half of children entering the Indiana juvenile justice system have mental health or substance abuse problems. In response, Indiana has established a pilot project to screen and treat juveniles suffering from these issues. To facilitate participation in the project, the Legislature enacted the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, barring a child's statement to a mental health evaluator from being admitted into evidence to prove delinquency. We construe that statute to confer both use immunity and derivative use immunity, in order to avoid a likely violation of the constitutional privileges against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. We therefore affirm the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

I.T. admitted to conduct that would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. As a condition of his probation, the trial court ordered him to undergo treatment for juveniles with sexual behavior problems, including polygraph examinations. During one of those exams, I.T. admitted to molesting two other children. As a result, the trial court moved IT. from his home to juvenile detention, then to residential treatment in the START (Sexually Traumatized Adolescents in Residential Treatment) program. In addition, the Department of Child Services and the police investigated the admissions, and the police then interviewed one of the victims and I.T. The State filed a new delinquency petition based on I.T.'s statements to his therapist.

The juvenile court initially approved the new delinquency petition, but I.T. moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, Ind.Code § 31–32–2–2.5(b) (2008), barred the State's evidence. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the Statute prohibited using I.T.'s statements to the evaluator or evidence derived from those statements: “Removing the consideration of the prohibited evidence, the Court can find no other evidence whatsoever to support a finding of probable cause, ... nor can the Court find that it is in the best interest of the child or the public that the petition in this case be filed.” The court gave the State ten days to refile based on independently gathered evidence, but the State appealed instead.

The Court of Appeals concluded “ sua sponte that the State is without authority to appeal a juvenile court's order withdrawing its approval of the filing of a delinquency petition.” State v. I.T., 986 N.E.2d 280, 281 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. granted,993 N.E.2d 625 (Ind.2013). We granted transfer to address two issues. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). First, we address whether the State could appeal the trial court's decision and conclude it could because the trial court essentially suppressed evidence ending the proceeding. Second, we reconcile the limited immunity in part (b) of the Juvenile Mental Health Statute with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and construe the Statute to conform to that privilege. Here, because I.T.'s statements during a court-ordered therapeutic polygraph were impermissibly used against him, we affirm the trial court.

Standard of Review

The State's right to appeal the trial court's order and the scope of I.T.'s immunity under the Juvenile Mental Health Statute are both issues of law. We therefore review them de novo. Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind.2011).

Discussion and Decision

I. State's Authority to Appeal.

The Court of Appeals determined that the State lacked the statutory authority to appeal because the State may appeal criminal matters only when authorized by statute. State v. Brunner, 947 N.E.2d 411, 415 (Ind.2011).¹ The State argues it may appeal the order because the trial court labeled its order a “Memorandum and Order on Motion to Dismiss,” and Indiana Code section 35–38–4–2(1) (2008) provides that the State may appeal “an order granting a motion to dismiss an indictment or information.” But in juvenile proceedings, the State files a delinquency petition, not an indictment or an information. I.C. § 31–37–10–1 (2008). That difference is significant because unlike an indictment or information, filing a delinquency petition requires the trial court's approval—a discretionary finding of “probable cause to believe that: (A) the child is a delinquent child; and (B) it is in the best interests of the child or the public that the petition be filed.” I.C. § 31–37–10–2(2) (2008). By contrast, “lack of probable cause is not grounds for dismissing a charging information” against an adult offender, Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051, 1055 (Ind.2000), let alone on any “best interests” grounds. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that a juvenile court's discretionary decision to disapprove a delinquency petition is not within any of the statutory grounds for the State to appeal. I.C. § 35–38–4–2.

But unlike the Court of Appeals, we do not find that principle dispositive here. The Court of Appeals looked beyond the order's title and found that in substance, the order did not dismiss an indictment but rather “unapproved” the initial filing of the delinquency petition. I.T., 986 N.E.2d at 286. Reading the order as a whole, though, we think the order is better characterized as suppressing evidence. The trial court did ultimately “rescind [ ] the previously granted Order Approving Filing of the Delinquency Petition” for lack of probable cause, echoing Indiana Code section 31–37–10–2(2)—but that conclusion rests on finding I.T.'s statements to be “prohibited evidence” under the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, and thus excluded from the trial court's probable-cause and best-interests analysis. At bottom, then, the trial court's order suppresses evidence and its “ultimate effect ... is to preclude further prosecution,” I.C. § 35–38–4–2(5)—an enumerated basis for the State to appeal, even in juvenile matters, see C.D., 947 N.E.2d at 1021. Therefore, we conclude the State had statutory authority to appeal the trial court's order, and we proceed to the merits of its appeal.

II. The Juvenile Mental Health Statute Must Provide Both Use and Derivative Use Immunity to Pass Constitutional Scrutiny.

The State argues that the Juvenile Mental Health Statute prevents it from introducing I.T.'s actual statements to prove delinquency at trial, but not from using his statements to develop other evidence—in other words, that the Statute provides “use immunity” but not “derivative use immunity.” See In re Caito, 459 N.E.2d 1179, 1183 (Ind.1984) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972)). But the trial court concluded that the Statute gives I.T. a limited immunity against both use and derivative use of his statements, reasoning that because the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination confers both forms of immunity, the Statute cannot be construed to provide any less protection. The State makes a compelling argument that the Statute's language confers only use immunity—but to avoid a likely violation of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, we construe it to confer derivative use immunity as well.

A. The Statute's terms clearly confer use immunity, but do not necessarily extend to derivative use immunity.

We begin with the language of the Statute to determine the scope of its protections. “Our primary goal in interpreting any statute is to effectuate legislative intent.” N.L. v. State, 989 N.E.2d 773, 777 (Ind.2013). An unambiguous statute needs no interpretation, and courts must “giv[e] effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language.” Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind.2011). But on the other hand, “when the validity of a statute is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that the Supreme Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 695 N.E.2d 99, 106 (Ind.1998) (emphasis added) (substitutions omitted) (quoting Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 348, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)). Adopting such a saving construction respects the “strong presumption of constitutionality” of statutes that come before us for review. See Girl Scouts of So. Ill. v. Vincennes Ind. Girls, Inc., 988 N.E.2d 250, 255 (Ind.2013).

The Juvenile Mental Health Statute, which applies only in juvenile proceedings, generally prohibits the State from using a child's statements to an evaluator ² as evidence against the child on the issue of delinquency, subject to several exceptions:

(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) and except for purposes of:

(1) a probation revocation proceeding; or

(2) a modification of a dispositional decree under IC 31–37–22;

a statement communicated to an evaluator in the evaluator's official capacity may not be admitted as evidence against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act or a crime.

(c) This section does not affect the admissibility of evidence when a juvenile interposes the defense of insanity.

(d) This section does not affect a disclosure or reporting requirement ... under statute or in case law regarding a statement that:

(1) relates directly to the facts or immediate circumstances of a homicide; or

(2) reveals that the child may intend to commit a crime.

I.C. §...