Opinion

Lewis v. State

  • 259 Ind. 431
  • 288 N.E.2d 138
  • 1972 Ind. LEXIS 498
Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 19, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Arterburn
On the bench
Debruler, Prentice, Arterburn, Givan, Hunter
Cited by
144 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.1%

Superseded by statute, as recognized in B.A. v. State

recognizing that child has right to have his parents present during custodial interrogation

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that child has right to have his parents present during custodial interrogation
  • adopting rule that child may not waive right to counsel until child has had opportunity to consult with interested adult
  • court conditions validity of waiver on child's prior consultation with a parent or other responsible adult
  • right to consult with parents pre-waiver

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Superseded by statute, as recognized in B.A. v. State

    Lewis v. State , 259 Ind. 431, 439-40, 288 N.E.2d 138, 142-43 (1972), superseded by statute as stated in B.A. v. State , 100 N.E.3d 225, 234 (Ind. 2018).
    Indiana Supreme CourtJun 20, 2018by statutemedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

Opinion Concurring in Result

Arterburn, C.J.

I concur in the principles enunciated in the majority opinion as to waiver of the right against self-incrimination and other constitutional rights as they apply to juveniles in criminal cases. I do not agree that they should be extended to cover juvenile proceedings, as might be drawn from the majority opinion. Juvenile procedure is not considered to be criminal in nature. The objective of the juvenile proceeding is informality for the purpose of rehabilitation and *441 reform. If we give the juvenile process all of the characteristics of a criminal trial, including the constitutional privleges of a crminal defendant, we undermine the whole purpose and object of juvenile proceedings. If we do that, we might just as well do away with juvenile proceedings and try all juveniles in the criminal courts where we have the apparatus and procedures sufficiently refined to protect their constitutional privileges.

Our Court, after In Re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S. Ct. 1428 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 , is unconsciously drifting to the point where juvenile proceedings will have all the characteristics of criminal trials, and we will have lost all the benefits accruing from the non-criminal juvenile process.

Givan, J., concurs.

Note.—Reported in 288 N. E. 2d 138 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.