Court Opinion

ID: 9516258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:39:20.323469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:07.736051
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
DeBruler, J.
I vote to deny rehearing. However, I cannot join in the majority opinion on rehearing written by Justice Givan. I vote to deny rehearing because the legal issue presented in appellant’s petition for rehearing was not preserved for appeal by a timely and adequate objection at trial. Wells v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 608, 261 N. E. 2d 865. I would resolve the issue in favor of appellant.
We are admonished by IC 1971, 31-5-7-2, being Burns § 9-3202, to construe the provisions of the juvenile statute liberally in order to further the purposes sought by it. Applying and construing the exclusionary rule erected by IC 1971, 31-5-7-15, being Burns § 9-3215, in this manner, I would hold that this question is barred. The question posed to the witness was whether the witness had heard that the accused had been determined to be a juvenile delinquent. This question carries with it the clear implication that the accused was in fact found to be a juvenile delinquent. Questions which would naturally lead a jury into the zone of subject matter excluded from its consideration by this statute, should be prohibited by the trial court. This was such a question.
Note.—Reported in 301 N. E. 2d 636.