Appeals on Wheels to bring case to Greencastle Friday

Appeals on Wheels

Appeals on Wheels, the award-winning civics outreach education program of the Indiana Court of Appeals, will roll into Greencastle on Friday, Sept. 6.

At 10:30 a.m. at the Inn at DePauw, a panel of judges will hear live, in-person arguments in A.J. vs. State.

The event, which is set to run for one hour, is open to the public, with the audience given the chance to ask the judges questions about the judiciary following the arguments. The justices are not able to speak about the specific case.

The scheduled panelists are Judge Terry A. Crone, Judge Peter R. Foley and Judge Dana J. Kenworthy.

In A.J. vs. State, an Indianapolis police officer responding to a dispatch approached four juveniles at a picnic table in a park. Three of the juveniles fled.

The fourth, 14-year-old A.H., was lying on top of the table. He saw the officer approaching and sat on the bench seat.

The officer saw a black hoodie on top of the table and started to move it out of the way. He felt something hard, lifted up the hoodie, and found a firearm underneath. The officer handcuffed A.H. due to safety concerns and asked for his personal information. A.H. gave the officer a false name and a date of birth and stated that he had been arrested before in Marion County. No records with that name were in the database.

The officer believed that he had probable cause to arrest A.H., searched him, and found a lollipop wrapper containing two grams of marijuana. Three DNA profiles were found on the firearm, but A.H. was excluded as a contributor.

The State filed a petition alleging that A.H. committed dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. A.H. filed a motion to suppress the marijuana, which the juvenile court denied. At the fact-finding hearing, the marijuana was admitted into evidence over A.H.’s objection, and the court adjudicated him delinquent on both counts.

On appeal, A.H. argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively possessed the firearm. He also argues that the juvenile court committed reversible error in admitting the marijuana, claiming that it was seized during a search incident to an unconstitutional arrest.