A.S. v. State
929 N.E.2d 881 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A juvenile's waiver of the constitutional right to counsel is invalid unless the state meets a heightened burden to show the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, which requires an affirmative inquiry by the court and an opportunity for meaningful consultation between the juvenile and their parent; a signed advisement form alone is insufficient.
Facts:
- A.S., a fourteen-year-old high school student, was involved in an altercation where she hit a fellow student.
- On October 6, 2008, A.S. was taken into custody on suspicion of battery.
- Prior to her initial detention hearing the next day, A.S. and her mother were presented with a document titled 'Advisement of Rights for Juvenile Hearing'.
- Both A.S. and her mother signed the advisement form.
Procedural Posture:
- At a detention hearing on October 7, 2008, the juvenile court found probable cause to detain A.S., treating a signed form as a waiver of her rights.
- On October 10, the State filed a delinquency petition against A.S. in the juvenile court.
- Counsel appeared for A.S. on October 10 and began representing her in the proceedings.
- After several continuances, a factfinding hearing was held on January 7, 2009.
- On February 20, 2009, the juvenile court found A.S. to be a delinquent child.
- A.S. appealed the detention and the delinquency adjudication to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juvenile's and her parent's signature on a general 'Advisement of Rights' form, without any inquiry by the trial court into their understanding of the right to counsel or the dangers of self-representation, constitute a constitutionally valid waiver of the right to counsel at a detention hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - May, Judge
No. A juvenile's purported waiver of the right to counsel is not constitutionally valid when it consists only of signing a rights advisement form without any judicial inquiry into the juvenile's and parent's understanding. The court reasoned that the right to counsel, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Indiana Constitution, is essential to fair proceedings. In the context of juvenile adjudications, the state bears a heightened burden to secure a valid waiver. Citing precedent, the court applied a four-factor test for adult waivers and added the juvenile-specific requirement of a 'meaningful consultation' between the parent and child. Here, the trial court made no inquiry into the decision to proceed pro se, there was no evidence A.S. or her mother understood the dangers of self-representation, and there was no evidence of a meaningful consultation. Therefore, the waiver was invalid and her initial detention based on that hearing was improper.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent procedural safeguards required to protect the constitutional rights of juveniles. It establishes that courts cannot rely on passive measures, like a signed form, to secure a waiver of the right to counsel from a minor. The ruling mandates an active and probing inquiry by the judge to ensure any waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, placing a significant burden on the state and the juvenile court. This precedent serves as a strong protection against unknowing waivers by minors and underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of juvenile rights, even if procedural errors at an early stage do not automatically invalidate a later, properly conducted adjudication.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: A.S. v. State (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"