M.T. v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals
928 N.E.2d 266 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Modifying a juvenile's probation to a more restrictive disposition, such as commitment to the Department of Correction, without an evidentiary hearing where the State presents evidence of the alleged probation violations, violates the juvenile's due process rights.

Facts:

In March of 2009, M.T. was on probation for a prior offense when he admitted to committing an act that would be criminal trespass if committed by an adult.
As a condition of his new probation, the juvenile court ordered a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction and required M.T. to complete treatment at Kokomo Academy.
The probation department later alleged that M.T. committed four specific probation violations on May 9, 10, 11, and 20, 2009.
These alleged violations included acts such as theft, criminal mischief, hitting a staff member, and threatening staff.
During a subsequent court hearing, the State presented testimony about an incident on May 14 where M.T. had to be restrained by staff, but this incident was not one of the four violations alleged in the State's official filing.

Procedural Posture:

M.T. was adjudicated a delinquent child and placed on probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction.
On May 21, 2009, the probation department filed an information in the juvenile court, alleging four probation violations by M.T.
The juvenile court held a modification hearing on July 13, 2009.
At the hearing, the State presented no evidence regarding the four alleged violations but did present testimony about an unrelated incident.
Following the hearing, the juvenile court modified M.T.'s disposition and ordered him committed to the Department of Correction.
M.T. (Appellant) appealed the juvenile court's order to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the State as the Appellee.

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 modifying a juvenile's probation to a more restrictive disposition without the State presenting any evidence of the alleged probation violations violate the juvenile's due process rights under the standard of fundamental fairness?

Opinions:

Majority - May, J.

Yes, modifying a juvenile's probation without an evidentiary hearing violates due process. Although the juvenile court system is characterized by flexibility under the parens patriae doctrine, it must still comport with the fundamental fairness demanded by the Due Process Clause. Fundamental fairness requires the State to present some evidence of the specific wrongdoing on which the modification request is based. While the relevant statute does not explicitly require an 'evidentiary' hearing, due process principles mandate one, similar to the requirements in adult probation revocation proceedings. Allowing a court to revoke a juvenile's probation based on mere allegations in a petition, without any supporting evidence, would grant the court unchecked power and fail to provide the juvenile with the 'essence of a fair trial.' In this case, the State failed to present any evidence supporting the four specific violations it alleged, and testimony about an unrelated incident cannot justify the modification. Therefore, the modification of M.T.'s probation was a violation of his due process rights.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the procedural due process rights of juveniles in probation modification hearings. It establishes that the 'fundamental fairness' standard, while allowing for the informality of the juvenile system, is not a toothless concept. The ruling mandates that a juvenile probation revocation cannot be based on mere accusation; the state must present actual evidence of the specific alleged violations. This precedent aligns juvenile rights more closely with those of adults in similar proceedings and prevents juvenile courts from exercising their broad discretion in a manner that is arbitrary or unsupported by facts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: M.T. v. State (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"