Court Opinion

ID: 9897223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:08:52.053069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.662771
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                Apr 19 2023, 3:33 pm

                                                                    CLERK
                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                     and Tax Court
                             IN THE

      Indiana Supreme Court
                Supreme Court Case No. 22S-JV-251

                               M.H.,
                     Appellant (Respondent below)

                                 –v–

                        State of Indiana,
                      Appellee (Petitioner below).

         Argued: September 22, 2022 | Decided: April 19, 2023

                Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court,
                        No. 20C01-1906-JD-169
             The Honorable Michael A. Christofeno, Judge
             The Honorable Elizabeth A. Bellin, Magistrate

       On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,
                           No. 21A-JV-2326

                       Opinion by Justice Goff
                      Chief Justice Rush concurs.
             Justice Molter concurs with separate opinion.
Justice Slaughter concurs in the judgment with separate opinion in which
                          Justice Massa joins.
Goff, Justice.

   Before 2021, our Juvenile Code defined a “delinquent act” only as an
act committed by a child “that would be an offense if committed by an
adult.”1 In K.C.G. v. State, decided in 2020, this Court held that, because
the dangerous-possession-of-a-firearm statute expressly applied “only to
children,” the offense could never be “committed by an adult.”2 Thus, we
concluded, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate the juvenile for violating the statute.3

      Today, we’re asked to decide, as an issue of first impression, whether
the jurisdictional rule we announced in K.C.G. may apply retroactively to
collaterally attack a final delinquency adjudication as void. Because the
rule in K.C.G. does not affect the reliability or fairness of juvenile
proceedings, policies of finality and efficient administration of justice
compel us to hold that our decision in that case does not apply
retroactively. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s decision to deny the
appellant’s requested relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(6).

Facts and Procedural History
   In June 2019, police arrested 14-year-old Martin (a pseudonym) for
trespassing, leading to the discovery of a loaded handgun on Martin’s
person. In its delinquency petition, the State alleged, among other things,
that Martin violated Indiana Code section 35-47-10-5 (the Dangerous-
Possession Statute),4 which criminalizes, as a class-A misdemeanor, the
knowing, intentional, or reckless possession of a firearm by a “child”
without a lawful purpose. Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5(a) (2019). The following
month, Martin admitted to the offense and the juvenile court adjudicated

1   Ind. Code § 31-37-1-2 (2020).
2   156 N.E.3d 1281, 1283 (Ind. 2020) (citing I.C. § 35-47-10-5(a)).
3   Id. at 1285.
4The State also alleged acts which, if committed by an adult, would be class-A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement and class-B misdemeanor railroad trespass.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                    Page 2 of 21
him delinquent. Martin filed no notice of appeal, rendering judgment final
thirty days later. See Ind. Appellate Rules 2(H)(1), 9(A)(1).

   In November 2020, this Court issued its decision in K.C.G. v. State,
holding that, because the Dangerous-Possession Statute, by its plain
terms, “applies only to children,” the State’s delinquency petition
necessarily failed to “allege a jurisdictional prerequisite—that K.C.G.’s
conduct was ‘an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult.’”
156 N.E.3d 1281, 1283, 1285 (Ind. 2020) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-1-2 (1997)).
Thus, the Court concluded, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the offense. Id. at 1285.

   Relying on K.C.G., Martin filed a Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion for relief
from judgment in August 2021, arguing that the juvenile court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate him delinquent under the
Dangerous-Possession Statute, rendering its judgment void. App. Vol. 2,
p. 36. The juvenile court found the 60(B)(6) motion “proper” but
ultimately denied the requested relief. 5 Id. at 39, 40. In support of its
ruling, the court relied on an amendment to Indiana Code section 31-37-1-
2, effective April 2021, enlarging the definition of a “delinquent act” to
include an act “in violation of” the Dangerous-Possession Statute. Id. at 40.
See Pub. L. No. 84-2021, § 1, 2021 Ind. Acts 858, 858 (codified at I.C. § 31-
37-1-2(3) (2021)).

   In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that,
under “the law in effect at the time of [Martin’s] act, as interpreted by [the]
Supreme Court in K.C.G.,” the juvenile court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate Martin delinquent under the Dangerous-
Possession Statute, effectively voiding the court’s judgment. M.H. v. State,
186 N.E.3d 1145, 1146–47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Citing the lack of
“conflicting precedent from the Indiana Supreme Court on the issue,” the

5Because post-conviction proceedings apply only to adults, Trial Rule 60(B) is the proper
procedural mechanism for juveniles to challenge the validity of an adverse judgment on
collateral review. J.W. v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1202, 1207–08 (Ind. 2019) (holding “that Trial Rule
60 is an appropriate avenue through which a juvenile must raise any and all claims premised
on the illegality of an agreed delinquency adjudication”).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 3 of 21
panel rejected the State’s argument “that K.C.G. broke with precedent and
declared a new rule that should not be applied retroactively.” Id. at 1150–
51. Finally, because the Amendment was “penal” in nature, rather than
“remedial,” the panel held that, absent express statutory language to the
contrary, retroactive application of the Amendment would violate the
constitutional bar against ex post facto laws. Id. at 1150.

  We granted the State’s petition for transfer, vacating the Court of
Appeals opinion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

Standards of Review
   When a party moves to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(B)(6), the
trial court lacks discretion because its judgment is either void or valid,
prompting a de novo standard of review on appeal. K.S. v. R.S., 669
N.E.2d 399, 404 n.9 (Ind. 1996). See also Hair v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust
Co., 18 N.E.3d 1019, 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (a de novo standard of
review applies to rulings on a Rule 60(B) motion that present only
questions of law). When the facts aren’t in dispute, subject-matter
jurisdiction is a pure question of law we likewise review under a de novo
standard. D.P. v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1210, 1213 (Ind. 2020).

Discussion and Decision
   The State contends that our decision in K.C.G. does not apply
retroactively to Martin’s delinquency adjudication. In support of its
argument, the State relies on the analytical framework announced by the
United States Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane—a framework expressly
adopted by this Court in Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487, 489 (Ind. 1990).6

6The State also argues that, even if K.C.G. were to apply retroactively, the amendment to
Indiana Code section 31-37-1-2 “was a remedial clarification that also applies retroactively,”
vesting subject-matter jurisdiction in the juvenile court “at the time the adjudication
occurred.” Appellee’s Br. at 13–14. Because we find dispositive the issue of K.C.G.’s
retroactive application, we need not address the State’s alternative argument.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 4 of 21
Pet. to Trans. at 8 (citing 489 U.S. 288 (1989)). Martin rejects the State’s
theory, insisting instead that the juvenile court never had subject-matter
jurisdiction to begin with, rendering its judgment void ab initio. Br. in
Opp. to Trans. at 4–5.

   We agree with the State on the need for retroactivity analysis. Martin’s
position rests on an obsolete theory that views our decision in K.C.G. “not
[as] new law but [as] an application of what is, and theretofore had been,
the true law.” See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 623 (1965) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). To be sure, when a trial court lacks
jurisdiction, we often speak of its actions as “void ab initio,” i.e., void from
the very beginning. Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 749 (Ind. 2000). But
because of a final judgment’s “de facto existence,” and because of the
parties’ “reliance upon its validity,” a new rule declaring that judgment
void “has practical consequences which cannot be justly ignored.” Martin
v. Ben Davis Conservancy Dist., 238 Ind. 502, 510, 153 N.E.2d 125, 129 (1958).
And, so, our modern jurisprudence, absent extenuating circumstances,
views a trial court’s final judgment as “as an existing juridical fact until
overruled, and intermediate cases finally decided under it are not to be
disturbed.” Linkletter, 381 U.S. at 624. This approach to the law is no less
true when a party seeks to vindicate his claim through the procedural
mechanism of Trial Rule 60(B)—a rule, we’ve emphasized, that “respects
the presumptive finality” of a trial court’s judgment. J.W. v. State, 113
N.E.3d 1202, 1206 (Ind. 2019).

I. Our modern jurisprudence presumes non-
   retroactivity with certain limited exceptions.
   When “defining the limits of adherence to precedent,” this Court, like
the United States Supreme Court, has long exercised discretion in
applying “the principle of forward operation” or “that of relation
backward.” See Great N. Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Ref. Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364
(1932). The methods and policies we’ve relied on to exercise that
discretion, and the types of collateral proceedings in which we’ve
considered the retroactive effect of a legal decision, provide a starting
point for resolution of the issue here.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023           Page 5 of 21
   A. Policies of finality and efficient administration of
      justice generally warrant non-retroactivity in the post-
      conviction context.
   In Enlow v. State, this Court considered whether to retroactively apply
the rule announced in Lawrence v. State, which mandated bifurcated
proceedings for habitual-offender charges. 261 Ind. 348, 350, 303 N.E.2d
658, 659 (1973) (citing 259 Ind. 306, 286 N.E.2d 830 (1972)). Drawing on
federal precedent, the Enlow Court identified “three considerations” to
resolve the issue: (1) the purpose of the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance
by law enforcement on the old rule, and (3) the rule’s effect on the
administration of justice. Id. at 350–51, 303 N.E.2d at 659 (citing Stovall v.
Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)). The Court considered the first of these three
factors the “most important and compelling,” especially when the new
rule aims “to correct serious flaws in the fact finding process at trial” and,
thus, enhance the reliability of convictions. Id. at 351, 303 N.E.2d at 659. In
those circumstances, the Court opined, the new rule warrants retroactive
effect “regardless of good-faith reliance by law enforcement authorities or
the degree of impact on the administration of justice.” Id. (internal citation
omitted). Because the procedural method used before Lawrence was
“constitutionally inadequate to assure that the defendant” in a habitual-
offender proceeding “would be afforded a fair determination of his guilt
or innocence on the princip[al] charge,” and because the holding in
Lawrence sought to correct that “serious deficiency,” the Enlow Court
applied that decision retroactively to all cases pending on direct appeal at
the time Lawrence was decided. Id. at 352, 303 N.E.2d at 660.

   While the Enlow Court declined to give complete retroactive effect to a
new rule of criminal procedure, subsequent decisions imposed no such
limitation. In Rowley v. State, for example, this Court held that its earlier
decision in Strong v. State—that evidence derived from a hypnotically
entranced witness was inadmissible due to its inherent unreliability—
applied retroactively to the petitioner’s post-conviction claim. 483 N.E.2d
1078, 1081–83 (Ind. 1985) (citing 435 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 1982)). To hold
otherwise, the Court reasoned, would “substantially” impair a criminal
trial’s “truth-finding function,” thus raising “serious questions about the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023          Page 6 of 21
accuracy of guilty verdicts” rendered final. Id. at 1082 (citations and
quotation marks omitted).

   Five years after Rowley, this Court, in Daniels v. State, reevaluated its
framework for retroactivity analysis following changes in the federal legal
landscape. 561 N.E.2d at 489. The defendant in that case stood convicted
of felony murder, for which the jury recommended—and the trial court
ordered—the death penalty. Id. at 487. After this Court affirmed his
conviction on direct appeal, the defendant sought post-conviction relief,
arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor’s closing statements at
trial improperly and prejudicially focused on the victim’s personal life.
Daniels v. State, 528 N.E.2d 775, 782 (Ind. 1988), cert. granted, judgment
vacated, 491 U.S. 902 (1989). After the post-conviction court denied relief
and this Court affirmed, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari, remanding to us for reconsideration under its recent decision in
South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989). Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 487.
The rule in Gathers prohibited a death-penalty-sentencing jury from
considering victim-impact information “about which the defendant was
unaware,” that was “irrelevant to the decision to kill,” and that potentially
compromised the reasoned decision-making necessary in a capital case. Id.
at 488 (quoting 490 U.S. at 811).7

   As a threshold issue on remand, the Daniels Court considered whether
the Gathers rule applied retroactively to the defendant’s collateral
proceeding. Id. In analyzing this issue, the Court elected to follow Teague,
citing the similarity in objectives between the remedy of post-conviction
relief in Indiana and the federal writ of habeus corpus. Id. at 489. Under
Teague’s analytical framework, “new rules of criminal procedure”
generally “do not apply retroactively to cases that became final before the
new rule was announced.” State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129, 1133 (Ind.

7Gathers has since been overruled by the United States Supreme Court. See Payne v. Tennessee,
501 U.S. 808 (1991).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                      Page 7 of 21
1998) (articulating the “principle [that] Daniels extracted from Teague”).8
Exceptions apply (1) to substantive rules and (2) to procedural rules that
“implicate the fundamental fairness of criminal proceedings and are
central to an accurate determination of innocence or guilt.”9 Id. (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). Applying this framework, the
Daniels Court rejected the retroactive application of Gathers, reasoning that
its exclusion presented no serious threat to “the likelihood of an accurate
death penalty determination” under Indiana’s capital-sentencing scheme.
561 N.E.2d at 490.

    By adopting Teague, our decision in Daniels marked a shift in the
framework we use for analyzing the retroactive effect—if any—of a legal
decision. Id. at 489. Rather than balancing several factors, a presumption
of non-retroactivity applies. And while recognizing certain limited
exceptions, our modern jurisprudence elevates “finality and efficient
administration of justice” as the primary “rationale for nonretroactivity.”
Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1137. See also Gutermuth v. State, 868 N.E.2d 427, 434
(Ind. 2007) (recognizing the “importance of finality without sacrificing
fairness”).

8 By contrast, for cases pending on direct appeal at the time a new rule is announced, the rule
“should be given retroactive application,” so long as “an adequate objection was lodged at
trial.” Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 488.
9Teague referred to this second exception as encompassing “watershed rules of criminal
procedure” designed to ensure a “fundamentally fair” trial. 489 U.S. at 311 (internal citation
omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court has since characterized this exception as “moribund” and
“retaining no vitality.” Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1560 (2021) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Because we ultimately depart from federal precedent in resolving
the retroactivity question here, we need not decide whether to follow the Supreme Court’s
repudiation of the procedural exception. See Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1132 (emphasizing that
“[s]tate courts hearing claims for collateral review” may “set their own retroactivity rules
independent of Teague”).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                        Page 8 of 21
   B. The same policy concerns apply to collateral attacks in
      the juvenile realm.
   Because our modern retroactivity analysis implicates “new rules of
criminal procedure,” Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1133 (emphasis added), our
appellate courts have traditionally applied Teague to claims raised either
on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. This case, of course,
involves a collateral attack on a juvenile-delinquency proceeding, which
Indiana courts deem civil or “quasi-criminal” in nature. A.S. v. State, 929
N.E.2d 881, 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). While “parallels exist between
Indiana’s criminal and juvenile systems,” we’ve long recognized
“significant differences separating the two.” A.M. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 361,
366 (Ind. 2019). Juveniles “generally enjoy the same constitutional
guarantees against governmental deprivation as adults,” but the parens
patriae doctrine permits the state to “adjust its legal system to account for
children’s vulnerability and their needs for concern, sympathy, and
paternal attention.” Id. (cleaned up). Because of these differences, the
standards to evaluate claims in one context may not apply in the same
way to the other. See, e.g., id. at 362–63 (holding that a modified due-
process standard, rather than the Strickland standard, governs a juvenile’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a disposition-modification
hearing).

   While no Indiana cases have applied Teague to collateral attacks in the
juvenile realm, we find sufficient reasons to view the retroactivity
question in that context through the same lens we apply to post-
conviction proceedings.

   First, this Court has relied on Teague in analyzing whether a new
civil/quasi-criminal rule applies retroactively. In Mohler v. State, for
example, we held that our previous decision in Bryant v. State—that
double jeopardy bars criminal prosecution for a drug offense after the
state has imposed a controlled-substance excise tax (or CSET) for the same
offense—did not apply retroactively. 694 N.E.2d at 1131, 1137 (citing 660
N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1995)). While acknowledging that a CSET assessment
imposed a “civil penalty,” the Court in Bryant concluded that it amounted

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023          Page 9 of 21
to criminal punishment by creating a risk of guilt upon which jeopardy
attaches. 660 N.E.2d at 297, 299 (emphasis added).

   Second, and perhaps more important, the same underlying policy
concerns that animate retroactivity analysis in the context of criminal post-
conviction claims—finality and efficient administration of justice—apply
equally to collateral attacks in the juvenile realm. Compare Mohler, 694
N.E.2d at 1137 (citing “finality and efficient administration of justice”),
with J.W., 113 N.E.3d at 1206 (concluding that the “same concerns of
finality and freedom of the parties to settle their disputes” that mark the
civil and criminal realms apply to the juvenile-delinquency context).

   Having set the stage for our decision, we proceed to resolve the claims
before us.

II. Our K.C.G. decision does not apply retroactively.
   To summarize, the analytical framework we adopted in Daniels applies
a presumption of non-retroactivity while recognizing certain limited
exceptions. And the same policy concerns that warrant this presumption
in post-conviction proceedings—finality and efficient administration of
justice—apply to collateral attacks in the juvenile realm. Our analysis here
begins by deciding whether this case fits the limited exceptions to the
general rule.

    A. Did K.C.G. create a new procedural rule?

  As noted above “new rules of criminal procedure” generally “do not
apply retroactively to cases that became final before the new rule was
announced.” Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1133. This framework requires us to
decide whether the rule announced in K.C.G. was “new” and, if so,
whether that rule was procedural.

      1. K.C.G. created a new rule.
  A case announces a “new” rule when it “breaks new ground,” when it
“imposes a new obligation” on the government, if its result “was not

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023      Page 10 of 21
dictated by precedent” at the time of the conviction, or if the result is
“susceptible [of] debate among reasonable minds.” Id. at 1132–33 (cleaned
up).

   Here, we have no doubt that our holding in K.C.G. marked a “clear
break” from Court of Appeals precedent. Cf. C.C. v. State, 907 N.E.2d 556,
558–59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing legislative intent to qualify an offense
under the defective statute as a “delinquent act” over which juvenile
courts held subject-matter jurisdiction). Contrary to the reasoning of the
panel below, it matters not whether this Court had spoken on the issue. To
conclude otherwise, as the State points out, undermines the precedential
authority of decisions from our Court of Appeals. Cf. Ludy v. State, 784
N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. 2003) (disapproving use of a jury instruction with a
“substantial history of appellate approval” and applying the “new rule”
only to those appellants “whose cases properly preserved the issue and
whose cases are now pending on direct appeal”); App. Rule 57(H)(1)
(identifying conflict in Court of Appeals decisions as one of several
“principal considerations governing [this] Court’s decision whether to
grant transfer”).

   The authority of Court of Appeals precedent notwithstanding, K.C.G.
expressly acknowledged the “prevailing law” at the time, the State’s
reliance on which, we added, was “not without force.” 156 N.E.3d at 1283.
At the very least, then, we recognized that the result we came to was
“susceptible [of] debate among reasonable minds.” See Mohler, 694 N.E.2d
at 1132–33 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Cf. Membres v.
State, 889 N.E.2d 265, 271 (Ind. 2008) (holding that Litchfield v. State, 824
N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005), created “a new rule” of criminal procedure because
that rule “reshaped the understanding of what constitutes a reasonable
warrantless trash search”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

   In sum, by breaking new ground and by recognizing the result it came
to was susceptible of reasonable debate, our decision in K.C.G. clearly
created a new rule. We must now decide whether that rule was
substantive or procedural.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023        Page 11 of 21
      2. The new jurisdictional rule in K.C.G. is neither
         procedural nor substantive.
   The principle of nonretroactivity generally “applies only to procedural
rules.” Jacobs v. State, 835 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. 2005) (internal citation
omitted). Substantive rules, on the other hand, do “generally apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review.” Id. “Whether a law is
procedural or substantive is rarely straightforward.” Church v. State, 189
N.E.3d 580, 598 (Ind. 2022) (Goff, J., concurring in part and in the
judgment). There are, however, certain qualities that help set them apart.
Generally, a procedural rule “control[s] the means by which a court is to
determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Jacobs, 835 N.E.2d at 489. A
substantive rule, on the other hand, “declares what conduct is criminal
and prescribes the punishment to be imposed for such conduct.” Id. (citing
Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 1.2 (2d ed. 2003)).

   The State argues that, because the result in K.C.G. “was that jurisdiction
was not exclusively conferred on the juvenile court,” our decision in that
case merely required adjudication of a dangerous-possession offense in an
adult criminal court, which “did have subject matter jurisdiction over
these cases.” Appellee’s Br. at 24–25. And because it “affected only the
forum in which guilt or innocence could be adjudicated,” the State insists,
our decision in “K.C.G. addressed ‘a procedural matter, whether a trial
could be brought at all, rather than a substantive matter.’” Pet. to Trans. at
13 (quoting Jacobs, 835 N.E.2d at 491). In support, the State relies on United
States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996).10 In that case, the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah,
which recognized subject-matter jurisdiction over crimes committed on
certain tribal lands as vesting in the state rather than the federal

10The State also cites Matloff v. Wallace, which relied heavily on Cuch to hold that that the
Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new rule of criminal procedure
that did not apply retroactively in a state post-conviction proceeding to void a final
conviction. 497 P.3d 686, 688, 689 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (citing 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                       Page 12 of 21
government, was not retroactive to final convictions. Id. at 988 (citing 510
U.S. 399 (1994)).11

   We agree with the State that K.C.G. created no new substantive rule.
Indeed, nothing in K.C.G. altered “either the nature of the [offense] in
question” or the legislature’s ability to punish juveniles for dangerous
possession of a handgun. See Jacobs, 835 N.E.2d at 490. To the contrary, our
holding in K.C.G.—that the juvenile court lacked the requisite subject-
matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the offense—rested on the “plain terms”
of the Dangerous-Possession Statute. 156 N.E.3d at 1282. And any
“judicial fix” to the statute’s jurisdictional defect, we concluded, “would
require that we expand [its] potential class of offenders to include adults
with unauthorized firearms.” Id. at 1284.

   While we agree that K.C.G. created no new substantive rule, we reject
the State’s argument that our decision created a new procedural rule.

   To begin with, the State’s theory improperly conflates venue and
jurisdiction. See Green v. State, 230 Ind. 400, 402, 103 N.E.2d 429, 430 (1952)
(emphasizing that “jurisdiction is one thing and venue is another”).
Jurisdiction (over the subject matter) refers to a court’s “power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which any particular proceeding
belongs.” K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind. 2006). Venue, by contrast,
does “not confer jurisdiction but rather prescribe[s] the location at which
trial proceedings are to occur from among the courts empowered to
exercise jurisdiction.” Benham v. State, 637 N.E.2d 133, 137 (Ind. 1994).

   Second, and more importantly, the State mischaracterizes our holding
in K.C.G.. Our decision in that case focused not on whether the juvenile

11The Cuch panel, for its part, relied on precedent in which the Supreme Court had “limit[ed]
the retroactive application of subject matter jurisdiction rulings.” 79 F.3d at 990. See, e.g.,
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 87–88 (1982) (applying
prospectively its decision that the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 unconstitutionally vested Article I
bankruptcy courts with the power to determine questions reserved to Article III courts); Gosa
v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 667–68, 685 (1973) (declining to retroactively apply its decision in
O’Callahan v. Parker, in which the Court had held that armed-forces personnel were not
subject to trial by court martial for nonservice offenses) (citing 395 U.S. 258 (1969)).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 13 of 21
court exercised jurisdiction “exclusive” of or “concurrent” with the circuit
courts, as the State contends. Appellee’s Br. at 25 (citing I.C. § 33-28-1-2).
To the contrary, we expressly held that, because a misdemeanor offense
under the Dangerous-Possession Statute could never be “an act that
would be an offense if committed by an adult,” the “juvenile court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction” completely. 156 N.E.3d at 1285 (emphasis
added). And because the Dangerous-Possession Statute “applies only to
children,” the circuit courts likewise lacked jurisdiction over the offense.12
See State v. Neukam, 189 N.E.3d 152, 157 (Ind. 2022) (deciding that, because
“criminal and delinquent acts are distinct classes of conduct determined
by age, the circuit court does not have jurisdiction over the acts [a person]
allegedly committed before turning eighteen”).

   In sum, while our decision in K.C.G. created a new rule, that rule—
implicating a court’s authority to hear and try a case—is neither
procedural nor substantive. Where this conclusion leaves us is an issue we
turn to next.

     B. The lack of clearly applicable precedent calls for a
        variation in our analytical framework.
  In the years following our decision in Daniels, Indiana appellate courts
have relied on Teague to decide whether a case warrants the retroactive

12The primary pre-K.C.G. Court of Appeals case on which the State relies here acknowledges
this, pointing out that, under the appellant’s theory, his violation of the Dangerous-Possession
Statute “would not fall within the jurisdiction of either the juvenile court or the adult criminal
court and thus would go unpunished.” C.C., 907 N.E.2d at 559.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 14 of 21
application of new sentencing rules,13 new rules of evidence,14 and new
rules of procedure.15 With no modern Indiana case having considered the
retroactive effect of a new jurisdictional rule, we’re left with an issue of
first impression: Can a party invoke such a rule to collaterally attack a
final delinquency adjudication as “void”?

   Our Trial Rule 60(B) jurisprudence offers some insight. Indiana courts
have long held that the rule precludes collateral attack “solely because a
subsequent decision of an appellate court in an unrelated case declared
the law to be contrary to that applied by the trial court in the party’s case.”
Sheraton Corp. of Am. v. Korte Paper Co., 173 Ind. App. 407, 408, 363 N.E.2d
1263, 1264 (1977). See also Chapin v. Hulse, 599 N.E.2d 217, 220 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1992) (emphasizing that nothing in Trial Rule 60(B) “contemplates a
subsequent change in law as grounds for relief”). But these decisions are
limited to the application of subsections 60(B)(2), (7), and (8)—none of
which implicate void judgments. See Sheraton Corp., 173 Ind. App. at 409,
363 N.E.2d at 1264.

  We find some support from a mid-twentieth-century case in which a
party challenged the trial court’s final judgment (from which no one had
appealed) on grounds that a subsequent decision—holding that the
applicable jurisdiction-conferring statute was unconstitutional—rendered
the trial court’s judgment void. Martin, 238 Ind. at 508–09, 153 N.E.2d at
128. This Court disagreed, holding that, when “a court of competent

 See Gutermuth v. State, 868 N.E.2d 427, 435 (Ind. 2007) (holding that the Supreme Court
13

decision in Blakely v. Washington is not retroactive to belated appeals under Post–Conviction
Rule 2 because such appeals are neither “pending on direct review” nor “not yet final”).
14Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind. 1993) (emphasizing that the new rule in Lannan v.
State—that Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), rather than the “depraved sexual instinct
exception,” applies when deciding the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual misconduct—
applied only to the defendant “and others whose cases properly preserved the issue and
whose cases were pending on direct appeal at the time Lannan was decided”) (citing 600
N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. 1992)).
15See, e.g., Brown v. State, 587 N.E.2d 693, 695, 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that the rule
announced in Smith v. State—that failure to instruct the jury on the element of specific intent
when a defendant is charged with attempted murder amounts to fundamental error—applies
retroactively on post-conviction review) (citing 459 N.E.2d 355, 357–58 (Ind. 1984)).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 15 of 21
jurisdiction, before the statute has been declared unconstitutional, renders
a judgment based upon the statute from which” no party appeals, that
“judgment is binding upon the parties thereto” and “cannot be attacked
collaterally.” Id. at 509, 153 N.E.2d at 128 (citing State v. Arkansas Const.
Co., 201 Ind. 259, 167 N.E. 526 (1929)). While premising its decision on
principles of finality, the Court recognized that other “classes of cases”
may warrant a different outcome—an outcome based on the parties’
reliance interests, “rights claimed to have become vested,” and
considerations of “public policy.” Id at 510–11, 153 N.E.2d at 129 (quoting
Chicot Co. Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374 (1940)). For
this reason, the Court declined to adopt “an all-inclusive statement of a
principle of absolute retroactive invalidity,” choosing instead to “confine
[its] consideration” of the issue to the circumstances before it. Id. at 511,
153 N.E.2d at 129 (quoting Chicot Co. Drainage Dist., 308 U.S. at 374).

   The Martin decision is certainly relevant to the issue we’re faced with
today, but the Court’s lack of a clear standard for analyzing the
retroactivity question gives us little guidance on which to proceed.16

  In the absence of clearly applicable precedent, we opt for charting a
new path to resolve the issue before us. “State courts hearing claims for
collateral review” may, after all, “set their own retroactivity rules
independent of Teague.” Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1132. In Membres, for

16Justice Slaughter, concurring in the judgment, relies on State v. Arkansas Construction
Company, a pre-Martin case involving a substantially similar issue—whether a final judgment
is rendered void by a subsequent decision holding the applicable jurisdiction-conferring
statute unconstitutional. 201 Ind. 259, 167 N.E. 526 (1929). While the two cases reached the
same result, the Arkansas Construction Court, unlike the Court in Martin, recognized no
possible exception to the rule that, when a “statute conferring jurisdiction is held
unconstitutional, such decision will have no retroactive effect” on a final judgment. Id. at 263,
167 N.E. at 527 (internal citation omitted). By declining to adopt “an all-inclusive statement of
a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity,” the Martin decision, in our view, superseded
Arkansas Construction. What’s more, the Arkansas Construction decision is not necessarily
“consistent with case law from the Supreme Court.” See post, at 2 (Slaughter, J., concurring in
the judgment). Cf. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379 (1981) (concluding
that a “court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without
jurisdiction, and thus, by definition, a jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective
only”) (emphasis added).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                         Page 16 of 21
example, we departed from precedent in holding that the new rule
announced in Litchfield v. State did not apply retroactively to cases
pending on direct review.17 889 N.E.2d at 271, 272. Teague and Daniels, we
acknowledged, generally required the retroactive application of new rules
to cases “not yet final.” Id. at 271, 273. But the rule announced in Litchfield,
we concluded, was “qualitatively different” from the new rules
considered in those cases. Id. at 273. In reaching this conclusion, we
distinguished two types of new rules: (1) those that “go to the fairness of
the trial itself and are designed to eliminate a previously existing danger
of convicting the innocent” and (2) those that “enforce other constitutional
rights not necessarily connected with the fact finding function.” Id. at 272
(quoting Enlow, 261 Ind. at 351, 303 N.E.2d at 660) (brackets omitted). The
former types require retroactive application whereas the latter do not. Id.
Within this framework, we concluded, the rule announced in Litchfield—
designed to “deter random intrusions into the privacy of all citizens”
rather than to exclude unlawfully seized evidence due to its potential for
prejudice—fell into the second category, thus precluding the need for
retroactive application. Id. at 272, 274.

     Like the new rule announced in Litchfield, the new rule we announced
in K.C.G. is “qualitatively different” from the new rule we considered in
Daniels. Indeed, the new jurisdictional rule announced in K.C.G. “speaks
to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the
parties,” see In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014) (cleaned
up), or to any “previously existing danger of convicting the innocent,” see
Membres, 889 N.E.2d at 272.

   Because the jurisdictional rule at issue here doesn’t quite fit the Teague
analysis, we offer a modified rule to guide us in similar cases going
forward: When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in
K.C.G., we apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a

17In relevant part, Litchfield held that, for a warrantless trash search to be reasonable, police (1)
must retrieve the trash “in substantially the same manner as the trash collector would take it”
and (2) must possess an “articulable individualized suspicion” that the subject of the search
was engaged in illegal activity. 824 N.E.2d 356, 363–64 (Ind. 2005).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                           Page 17 of 21
final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised
the reliability or fairness of the proceedings. This approach, we believe,
aligns with the policy concerns that have long informed our retroactivity
analysis of cases on collateral review—finality and efficient administration
of justice. See Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 489; Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1132.

  Whether these concerns call for retroactive application of K.C.G. is a
question we turn to next.

   C. Policies of finality and efficient administration of
      justice compel us to restrict the retroactive effect of
      K.C.G.’s new jurisdictional rule.
   As the Supreme Court emphasized in Teague, principles of finality and
fundamental fairness are “essential to the operation of our criminal justice
system.” 489 U.S. at 309, 311. Inherent in these tenets is the judicial policy
of efficient administration of justice, for “once a new rule is applied to the
defendant in the case announcing the rule,” fairness “requires that it be
applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated.” Id. at 300.

   These principles and policies compel us to restrict the retroactive effect
of K.C.G.’s new jurisdictional rule.

   To begin with, the interests of finality are strong. This is especially true
in the juvenile context, with its emphasis on rehabilitation. See Lehman v.
Lycoming Cnty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513 (1982). To
relitigate the dangerous-possession offense would only prolong the
uncertainty of final adjudication, interrupt the necessary services, and
ultimately delay the rehabilitative process. As the Supreme Court has
observed, there is “little that can be as detrimental to a child’s sound
development as uncertainty.” Id.

   Retroactive application of K.C.G. would also open to collateral attack
virtually all adjudications under the Dangerous-Possession Statute,
creating a potential threat to public safety, undermining the good-faith
efforts of law enforcement, and visiting hardship on victims and witnesses

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023         Page 18 of 21
who justifiably relied on the original judgments.18 The State, of course,
could still refile delinquency allegations. See B.D.T. v. State, 738 N.E.2d
1066, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (reaching this conclusion because
“jeopardy does not attach to a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction”). But
in addition to the enormous cost that would impose on the state, many of
those adjudicated delinquent—for dangerous possession along with any
number of other offenses, both violent and nonviolent—have likely aged
out of the juvenile system, effectively preventing further prosecution. See
D.P. v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. 2020) (holding that juvenile courts lack
jurisdiction over delinquency petitions once the accused turns twenty-
one). And even if it were possible to refile delinquency petitions, other
factors—the passage of time, the fading of memories, and the potential
loss of evidence—may render adjudication a practical impossibility.

   In contrast to these weighty factors, Martin’s interests in post-
adjudication relief are minimal. He raises no claim that the juvenile court’s
lack of subject matter-jurisdiction undermined the accuracy of his
adjudication or otherwise compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
Indeed, despite the court’s latent violation of the juvenile jurisdiction
statute, the record reveals no diminution in the procedural protections
Martin enjoyed at his delinquency proceedings. In reaching its decision,
the juvenile court considered several factors: the statements and
recommendations of the parties involved, the pre-dispositional report, the
results of an IYAS risk-assessment tool, the best interests of Martin and
the community, various alternatives for his treatment and rehabilitation,
his family’s income and other assets, and his family’s ability to participate
in services. App. Vol. 2, p. 7. After the court advised him of his rights,
Martin voluntarily admitted to the dangerous-possession allegation. Id.
And, based on efforts by the probation department to prevent Martin’s
removal and placement in detention, the court ordered him to remain at
home on electronic monitoring. Id. at 8, 11. While a reversal of his

18A cursory Westlaw search reveals appellate-court affirmance of approximately forty
adjudications under the Dangerous-Possession Statute dating back to 1994 (the year Indiana
adopted the legislation). And that figure, of course, fails to account for those adjudications
that were never appealed—a figure that could reach into the hundreds if not thousands.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023                       Page 19 of 21
adjudication would certainly mark a victory for Martin, others would no
doubt consider it a travesty of justice.

   In short, the “interest in leaving concluded litigation in a state of
repose” far outweighs “the competing interest in readjudicating” a
delinquency ruling under a new jurisdictional rule that never called into
question the basic fairness of the process. See Teague, 489 U.S. at 306
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Conclusion
   Because our decision in K.C.G. does not affect the reliability or fairness
of juvenile proceedings, policies of finality and efficient administration of
justice compel us to hold that the new jurisdictional rule announced in
that case does not apply retroactively in a collateral attack to render a final
delinquency adjudication void. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s
decision to deny the appellant’s requested relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(6).

Rush, C.J., concurs.
Molter, J., concurs with separate opinion.
Slaughter, J., concurs in the judgment with separate opinion in
which Massa, J., joins.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Mark D. Altenhof
Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023        Page 20 of 21
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE,
PUBLIC DEFENDER OF INDIANA
Amy E. Karozos
Katherine Province
Mark S. Koselke
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE,
INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNCIL
Bernice Corley
Indianapolis, Indiana

Joel C. Wieneke
Brooklyn, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023   Page 21 of 21
Molter, J., concurring.

   I join the Court’s opinion, which holds that our decision in K.C.G. v.
State, 156 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. 2020), does not apply retroactively for a
collateral attack on a final delinquency adjudication, and explains that
concerns for finality and the efficient administration of justice generally
compel applying jurisdictional rules prospectively unless a new decision
calls into question the reliability or fairness of the prior proceedings. I
write separately to note two points.

   First, I read State v. Arkansas Construction Company, 201 Ind. 259, 167
N.E. 526 (1929), as supporting our holding today. In that case, we held
that a decision declaring a jurisdictional statute unconstitutional did not
have retroactive effect. Id. at 527. If our conclusion that our Constitution
precludes jurisdiction is generally applied prospectively, then the same
must be true for our conclusion that a statute precludes jurisdiction. We
reaffirmed that holding in Martin v. Ben Davis Conservancy District, 238
Ind. 502, 509, 153 N.E.2d 125, 128 (1958).

   Second, the Court’s opinion explains how it is generally consistent with
federal retroactivity principles. It is also consistent with federal caselaw in
the more specific context of Rule 60(B) motions collaterally attacking
judgments on jurisdictional grounds. M.H. raises his claim through
Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has explained that Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) tracks Rule
60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and both rules allow a
court to relieve a party from a final judgment that is void. In re Lodholtz,
769 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2014). But “the court that issued the judgment in
excess of its jurisdiction had jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, and its
jurisdictional finding, even if erroneous, is therefore good against
collateral attack, like any other erroneous but final judgment.” Id.
(quotations omitted). “Only when the jurisdictional error is ‘egregious’
will [federal] courts treat the judgment as void.” United States v. Tittjung,
235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023          Page 1 of 2
  A leading treatise on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure likewise
explains:

        It must be noted, however, that a court has jurisdiction to
        determine its own jurisdiction. Thus, if [a] defendant has
        challenged the court’s personal jurisdiction and this issue has been
        resolved against the defendant by a final judgment, that judgment
        is not void, but is binding on the issue of jurisdiction. By the same
        token, a court’s determination that it has jurisdiction of the
        subject matter is binding on that issue, if the jurisdictional
        question actually was litigated and decided, or if a party had an
        opportunity to contest subject-matter jurisdiction and failed to do
        so.

11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2862 (3d ed.) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).

  Here, the prior court had jurisdiction to consider its own jurisdiction,
and its jurisdictional error cannot be considered egregious because, as the
Court’s opinion explains, there was binding Court of Appeals precedent at
the time concluding there was jurisdiction.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023        Page 2 of 2
Slaughter, J., concurring in the judgment.

   In K.C.G. v. State, 156 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. 2020), we held that juvenile
courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the so-called dangerous-
possession-of-a-firearm statute, see Ind. Code §§ 31-37-1-2, 35-47-10-5(a)
(2020). Today, the Court holds that K.C.G.’s new jurisdictional rule does
not apply retroactively and thus is unavailable to M.H., a juvenile, who
sought relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(6) to void an adverse final judgment
entered against him in 2019. Though I agree with the Court’s disposition
today, I reach that result for different reasons. The Court believes it needs
to “chart[] a new path to resolve the issue before us.” Ante, at 16. In
contrast, I prefer our existing, long-trodden path—one that, in my view, is
neither broken nor needs fixing but leads directly to today’s result.

   A noteworthy case on that path dating back nearly a hundred years is
State ex rel. Piel v. Arkansas Construction Co., 201 Ind. 259, 167 N.E. 526
(1929). Arkansas addressed whether a final, never-appealed judgment was
void after a later case held that the statute conferring jurisdiction for that
judgment was unconstitutional. We held no—that the prior judgment in
Arkansas was not void but still binding—because such jurisdictional
decisions are not retroactive: “Where a statute conferring jurisdiction is
held unconstitutional, such decision will have no retroactive effect … and
where proceedings have been regularly had under the law as it existed
before such decision they will not be disturbed.” Id. at 527 (quoting 15 C.J.
Courts § 174 (1918)).

   The Court today acknowledges Arkansas but believes it is not “clearly
applicable precedent”. Ante, at 16. I respectfully disagree. Arkansas does
not merely support but compels the same result here—that our
jurisdictional ruling in K.C.G. does not apply retroactively to void the final
judgment in M.H.’s closed case. It is irrelevant that the jurisdictional
question in Arkansas arose from how we interpreted the constitution, and
the question today arises from how we interpreted a statute: “The
common law, the statutes, and the constitutions make up the law of the
land. They are all law. On principle it is not perceived why a mistake in
constitutional law should be visited with more serious consequences than

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023          Page 1 of 2
a mistake in common or statutory law.” Koepke v. Hill, 157 Ind. 172, 60 N.E.
1039, 1040 (1901).

   This conclusion is consistent with case law from the Supreme Court
and other federal courts. See, e.g., N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe
Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 88 (1982) (holding that jurisdictional rule for
bankruptcy courts should not apply retroactively). As Judge Posner
explained in In re Edwards, 962 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1992), a court that issued
a judgment outside its jurisdiction still had jurisdiction to decide its own
jurisdiction; and that jurisdictional determination, even if later shown to
be wrong, survives collateral review like any other erroneous but final
judgment. Id. at 644. Here, M.H. had the opportunity to challenge the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction but failed to do so. And binding appellate
precedent at the time in Indiana held that the juvenile court had
jurisdiction. See, e.g., C.C. v. State, 907 N.E.2d 556, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

   Our Court eventually arrives at the right result today, but it does so by
applying the criminal-law retroactivity standard announced in Teague v.
Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and adopted in Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487
(Ind. 1990), to this civil case. We have repeatedly held that juvenile cases
are civil proceedings subject to civil procedures. See, e.g., J.W. v. State, 113
N.E.3d 1202, 1206 (Ind. 2019). Juvenile adjudications are not subject to
post-conviction relief afforded for criminal convictions. Jordan v. State, 512
N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987). And neither should post-judgment relief for
juvenile adjudications be subject to the retroactivity rules that apply to
collateral criminal proceedings. That is especially true when our
longstanding civil retroactivity precedent already supplies a proper rule
of decision here.

   For these reasons, I do not join the Court’s opinion, but I concur in its
judgment not to apply K.C.G. retroactively to void the adverse judgment
against M.H.

   Massa, J., joins.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JV-251 | April 19, 2023            Page 2 of 2