Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 615(c) is the proper vehicle to permit a parent-witness to remain in the courtroom despite a separation-of witnesses order, the exception is not automatic; child defendants must still affirmatively show their parent’s presence is “essential.”
Juvenile
B.R. v. State, 20A-JV-1203, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2021).
To prove constructive possession, the State must demonstrate that the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.
K.C.G. v. State, No. 20S-JV-263, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2020).
Juvenile Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction when it adjudicated juvenile as a delinquent child for dangerously possessing a firearm, an act that would not be an offense if committed by an adult.
D.P. v. State, State v. N.B., No. 20S-JV-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Sep. 8, 2020).
A juvenile court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to waive an alleged delinquent offender into adult criminal court if the individual is no longer a “child.”
Harris v. State, No. 19A-CR-1863, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2020).
Pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 615(c), the parent of a juvenile waived to adult court is a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense.