Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
BJB v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Thus, a sex offender registry hearing needs to include "an evaluation of whether that period of treatment sufficiently rehabilitated [the juvenile] and whether he was likely to commit another sex offense." Id. 2009Thus, a sex offender registry hearing needs to include "an evaluation of whether that period of treatment sufficiently rehabilitated [the juvenile] and whether he was likely to commit another sex offense." Id. | 2 | 4 |
TW v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See T.W., 953 N.E.2d at 1124-25 (finding that a juvenile’s statements in treatment could be used for other purposes, such as requiring a juvenile to register as a sex offender). 2014See T.W., 953 N.E.2d at 1124-25 (finding that a juvenile’s statements in treatment could be used for other purposes, such as requiring a juvenile to register as a sex offender). | 2 | 2 |
JCC v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In J.C.C., we stated unequivocally that “[w]hen a juvenile is placed in a DOC facility, a secure private facility, or a juvenile detention facility, the sex offender registry hearing cannot be held until after the juvenile is released from the facility.” 897 N.E.2d at 934. 2017We believe that the legislative intent here is to hold the sex offender registration determination in abeyance so that the juvenile has the opportunity to be rehabilitated during detention.” Id. (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 5 |
J.C.C. v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See J.C.C. v. State, 897 N.E.2d 931, 934 (Ind. 2008); see also Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5 (b)(2) (2007). “[T]he Legislature has dictated this heightened burden of proof . . . in recognition of the serious social consequences of sex offender registration . . . .” J.C.C., 897 N.E.2d at 934 . [10] When a juvenile is placed in a secure private facility, a sex offender registry hearing can be conducted only after the juvenile has been released from the facility. 2015See J.C.C. v. State, 897 N.E.2d 931, 934 (Ind. 2008); see also Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5 (b)(2) (2007). “[T]he Legislature has dictated this heightened burden of proof . . . in recognition of the serious social consequences of sex offender registration . . . .” J.C.C., 897 N.E.2d at 934 . [10] When a juvenile is placed in a secure private facility, a sex offender registry hearing can be conducted only after the juvenile has been released from the facility. | 1 | 1 |
B.W. v. Stategreen1 sentence2012B.W. v. State, 909 N.E.2d 471, 477 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re GB
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 6 | 2004–2007 |
N.L. v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017We emphasized the importance of an express finding under subsection (C) in N.L., noting that in the absence of such a finding, “it is impossible to determine on review whether the trial court properly applied the heightened [clear and convincing] evidentiary standard — or even whether it was making an individualized determination, as the statute requires.” 989 N.E.2d at 780 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
BW v. State
green
1 sentence2012B.W., 909 N.E.2d at 476 (citing J.C.C., 897 N.E.2d at 934 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wallace v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 384 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.