Title: J.R. v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-JV-285 
J.R., 
Appellant (Respondent),  
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee (Petitioner). 
Argued: June 7, 2018 | Decided: June 25, 2018 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D09-1701-JD-70 
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, 
No. 49A02-1704-JV-754 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur.   
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jun 25 2018, 2:31 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-JV-285 | June 25, 2018 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam.  
The juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing and found sixteen-
year-old J.R. delinquent for committing acts that would be 
dangerous possession of a firearm and carrying a handgun without 
a license (“CHWOL”), had they been committed by an adult. J.R. 
appealed, arguing that the police who found the handgun in his 
possession during a pat-down search violated his rights under the 
United States and Indiana Constitutions to be free from 
unreasonable searches. J.R. also argued his dual adjudications 
constitute double jeopardy when each is predicated on the same 
evidence of his possession of a single handgun.   
The Court of Appeals decided the pat-down search did not violate 
J.R.’s rights. On the remaining issue, the parties agreed that double 
jeopardy principles preclude his dual adjudications and, therefore, 
that his adjudication for CHWOL should be vacated. See Appellant’s 
Br. at 15; Appellee’s Br. at 20-22; Appellant’s Amended Reply Br. at 
8; Appellant’s Resp. to State’s Pet. to Trans. at 4. But the Court of 
Appeals sua sponte held the adjudication for CHWOL must be 
vacated for a different reason: that, as a matter of law, a delinquency 
adjudication cannot be based on CHWOL. It vacated the 
adjudication for CHWOL and affirmed the adjudication for 
dangerous possession of a firearm. J.R. v. State, 89 N.E.3d 408 (Ind. 
Ct. App. 2017), reh’g granted, 94 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), 
vacated. Each side sought transfer, which we granted.  
We held oral argument and have considered the appeal. We 
summarily affirm the parts of the Court of Appeals’ original opinion 
that address and reject J.R.’s challenge to the pat-down search, 
including the sections entitled “Facts” and “I. Search and Seizure.” See 
Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).  
As the parties agree on disposition of the double jeopardy issue, we 
remand to the juvenile court to vacate the delinquency adjudication 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-JV-285 | June 25, 2018 
Page 3 of 3 
for CHWOL, and we affirm the delinquency adjudication for 
dangerous possession of a firearm.1     
All Justices concur.   
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L A N T 
Joel M. Schumm 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
Ruth Ann Johnson 
Marion County Public Defender Agency 
Appellate Division 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L E E 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Stephen R. Creason 
Ellen H. Meilaender  
Matthew B. MacKenzie 
Deputy Attorneys General 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
                                                 
1 See J.G. v. State, 93 N.E.3d 1112, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming delinquency adjudication 
for dangerous possession of a firearm and remanding to vacate adjudication for CHWOL where 
juvenile argued, and State conceded, the CHWOL adjudication should be vacated on double 
jeopardy grounds), trans. denied. At oral argument in J.R.’s appeal, the Court questioned 
whether a juvenile delinquency adjudication may be based on dangerous possession of a 
firearm. “A child commits a delinquent act if, before becoming eighteen (18) years of age, the 
child commits an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult . . . .” Ind. Code § 31-
37-1-2 (emphasis added). In finding J.R. delinquent, the court cited this statute along with one 
providing, “A child who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly possesses a firearm for any 
purpose other than a purpose described in section 1 of this chapter commits dangerous 
possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5(a) (emphasis added); 
see Ind. Code § 35-47-10-3 (defining “child” as person less than eighteen years of age). Although 
this language in bold raises the question whether dangerous possession of a firearm can serve as 
the basis for a delinquency adjudication, we need not decide that issue today because the parties 
have not raised and briefed it.