N.L. v. State of Indiana
989 N.E.2d 773 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Before ordering a juvenile to register as a sex offender, a trial court must conduct a formal evidentiary hearing and make an express finding, based on clear and convincing evidence presented at that hearing, that the juvenile is likely to commit another sex offense.
Facts:
- N.L., a juvenile, admitted to conduct that would constitute D-felony sexual battery if committed by an adult.
- He was placed in the Resolute Treatment Facility, an inpatient program for sexually maladaptive youth, and successfully completed eight months of treatment.
- Following treatment, in January 2012, N.L. was moved to the Jackson County Juvenile Home.
- A Risk Evaluation report from Resolute indicated N.L. had a 'moderate level of risk to reoffend,' quantified as a four to six percent chance.
- Expert testimony at a hearing established that N.L.'s risk was below the average recidivism rate and far below the typical 15 percent threshold for recommending registration.
- The Group Home's Assistant Program Director testified that N.L. was successfully taking all the steps recommended to further reduce his risk of reoffending, such as being involved in school and developing positive peer relationships.
Procedural Posture:
- N.L. was adjudicated a delinquent child in juvenile court for conduct constituting sexual battery.
- In February 2012, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding potential sex offender registration, at which N.L. was represented by counsel, but the court took the matter under advisement.
- In May 2012, the court held a subsequent hearing at which N.L. was not represented by counsel.
- Following the May hearing, the juvenile court ordered N.L. to register as a sex offender without making any express oral or written findings regarding his likelihood to reoffend.
- N.L. (appellant) appealed the registration order to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's registration order.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted review of the case.
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 Indiana's Sex Offender Registration Act require a trial court to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing and make an express finding by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile is likely to reoffend before ordering the juvenile to register as a sex offender?
Opinions:
Majority - Rush, Justice
Yes. Before a juvenile may be ordered to register as a sex offender, the trial court must hold a formal evidentiary hearing and make an express finding by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is likely to commit another sex offense. The court reasoned that the 'serious social consequences' and 'harsh or far reaching effects' of registration, which are in tension with the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, demand heightened procedural protections. The statute's requirement that a juvenile be 'found' to be a risk by 'clear and convincing evidence' implies the necessity of a formal evidentiary hearing where the juvenile is represented by counsel and can challenge evidence. The May hearing failed this standard as N.L. was unrepresented and no new evidence on his risk was presented. Furthermore, the term 'found' requires an express, on-the-record finding by the trial court to ensure the proper legal standard was applied and to allow for meaningful appellate review.
Analysis:
This decision establishes significant procedural safeguards for juveniles facing sex offender registration in Indiana. By requiring both a formal evidentiary hearing and an explicit judicial finding, the court elevates the standard of proof from a mere formality to a substantive requirement. This holding reinforces the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile justice system by creating a higher procedural barrier to imposing the severe, potentially lifelong consequences of registration. Future cases will require trial courts to be more rigorous and transparent in their decision-making process, ensuring that registration is based on formally admitted evidence and a clearly articulated justification, rather than on information from informal hearings or unstated conclusions.
Unlock the full brief for N.L. v. State of Indiana