RW v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals
901 N.E.2d 539 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a juvenile's waiver of the right to counsel to be valid under Indiana law, the State must demonstrate that a "meaningful consultation" between the child and their parent occurred. This requires showing either that an actual consultation took place or that an express opportunity for such consultation was provided by the court and then declined.

Facts:

On September 7, 2007, officials at Lanesville High School reported that a student, R.W., smelled of alcohol.
When confronted by school officials, R.W. admitted that he had been drinking.
The school informed the police, and a Harrison County Sheriff's Department deputy arrived and took R.W. into custody.
The deputy administered a breath test, which measured R.W.'s blood alcohol content to be 0.06%.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Indiana filed a petition in the Harrison County trial court, alleging R.W. was a delinquent child for committing public intoxication.
At an initial hearing, R.W. appeared with his mother, waived his right to counsel with his mother's consent, and admitted the allegations.
The trial court adjudicated R.W. a delinquent.
At a subsequent disposition hearing, the court ordered R.W. to be made a ward of the Department of Correction.
R.W., through new counsel, filed a motion to correct error, arguing his waiver of counsel was invalid, which the trial court denied.
R.W. (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the State of Indiana 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 a juvenile's in-court waiver of the right to counsel satisfy the statutory "meaningful consultation" requirement when the court does not provide an express opportunity for the juvenile and their parent to privately confer before the waiver is made?

Opinions:

Majority - Najam, J.

No. A juvenile's waiver of the right to counsel is invalid if the court fails to provide an express opportunity for the juvenile and parent to privately consult, as this does not satisfy the statutory meaningful consultation requirement. Indiana law provides juveniles with an additional safeguard not afforded to adults: the right to a meaningful consultation with a parent before waiving constitutional rights. The State bears a heavy burden to prove this occurred, which can be met by demonstrating either an actual consultation or an express, but declined, opportunity for one. Here, the trial court advised R.W. of his rights and immediately accepted his waiver after his mother voiced her agreement, without pausing or offering them a chance to discuss the decision. Because the record is devoid of any evidence that an opportunity for consultation was given, the State failed to meet its burden, rendering the waiver invalid and requiring the reversal of the delinquency adjudication.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the heightened procedural safeguards required for juveniles, emphasizing that the meaningful consultation requirement is a substantive, not merely formal, protection. The ruling clarifies that a parent's presence and consent are insufficient; the court must affirmatively create a record showing that a specific opportunity for private discussion was provided. This places a clear duty on trial courts to pause proceedings and expressly offer a consultation to ensure any waiver of a juvenile's rights is knowing and voluntary. The decision likely makes it more difficult for the State to secure waivers of counsel from juveniles in court and encourages more robust judicial oversight in delinquency proceedings.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: RW v. State (2009)

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