N.M. v. State
791 N.E.2d 802 (2003)
Rule of Law:
For a juvenile's waiver of the right to counsel to be valid, the court must explicitly inform the juvenile and their parent or guardian that an attorney will be appointed at public expense if they are unable to afford one.
Facts:
- Fifteen-year-old N.M. and two other teenage girls confronted another teenager, A.O., in an apartment laundry room.
- N.M. displayed a gun and, along with the other girls, demanded A.O.'s shoes.
- A.O. complied and gave the girls her shoes.
- Subsequently, N.M.'s mother, Christine Magness, brought N.M. to the Lawrence Police Department.
- A detective advised N.M. and Magness of N.M.'s Miranda rights.
- After a private consultation with her mother, N.M. admitted her participation in the robbery.
- N.M. and Magness signed a 'Court Advisement of Rights' form, which stated N.M. had a right to a lawyer but did not mention the right to a court-appointed lawyer if they could not afford one.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a delinquency petition against N.M. in the juvenile trial court, alleging an act that would be robbery if committed by an adult.
- At an initial hearing, N.M., appearing with her mother, stated she did not want an attorney, and the trial court found a 'knowing lawful waiver of counsel.'
- N.M. then admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the trial court found the petition to be true.
- At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court adjudicated N.M. delinquent and committed her to the Girls' School.
- N.M. later filed a motion for relief from judgment in the same trial court, arguing her waiver of counsel was not knowing or voluntary.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied N.M.'s motion for relief from judgment.
- N.M., as the appellant, appealed the denial of her motion to the Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
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 waiver of the right to counsel satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements when the court fails to explicitly inform the juvenile and her parent that counsel will be appointed at public expense if they cannot afford one?
Opinions:
Majority - May, Judge
No. For a juvenile's waiver of her right to counsel to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, she and her parent must be explicitly informed that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed at public expense. The court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental protection, especially for juveniles. The written advisement form signed by N.M. and her mother was deficient because it omitted any mention of appointed counsel for the indigent. Furthermore, the State failed to prove that a video playing in the courthouse waiting area adequately informed them of this right, as there was no evidence they were instructed to watch it, that they did watch it, or that the video even contained the necessary information. This case is distinguishable from prior precedent like M.R. v. State, where the defendant received both written and video advisements that explicitly mentioned the right to appointed counsel. Without a clear, affirmative advisement of the right to counsel at public expense, the waiver is invalid.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the heightened procedural safeguards required in juvenile delinquency proceedings, underscoring that a juvenile's waiver of a fundamental right must be demonstrably knowing and intelligent. It clarifies that a generic advisement of the 'right to counsel' is insufficient; the advisement must specifically include the right to appointed counsel for those who cannot afford one. The ruling places a clear burden on the state to create a record proving that any advisement, particularly through unconventional means like a video, was effectively communicated and understood by the juvenile and their guardian. This precedent limits the court's ability to infer a valid waiver and requires an active, explicit advisement process to protect the rights of young defendants.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: N.M. v. State (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"