Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court on Monday reversed a man’s child molestation conviction due to a lack of jurisdiction.
The case, which originated in Marion Superior Court, is one of several in which the appellate courts have identified a jurisdictional gap that prevents the state from prosecuting an individual who allegedly committed child molesting as a minor but was not waived into adult court before turning 21.
The jurisdictional gap prevents the juvenile court from hearing the case because the individual turned 21 or older or waiving the case to adult court because the juvenile court lost jurisdiction.
It also prevented the adult court from hearing the case directly because adult courts do not have jurisdiction over delinquent acts committed by minors.
Johnny Webster Brown’s case fell into this gap.
The day before he turned 21 in 2019, the state filed a delinquency petition in juvenile court alleging he committed a delinquent act that would be the offense of child molesting if he had been an adult at the time.
Almost a year later, the case was waived into adult court where Brown was convicted of Class C felony child molesting for acts allegedly committed between July 2013 and February 2016.
Brown appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in 2024. The appellate court found that while legislative fixes that went into effect in July 2023 cured the jurisdictional gap, the retroactive application of the statutes to Brown would violate his rights under the U.S. Constitution to be free of retroactive consequences.
The state then appealed the case to the high court. The court reversed Brown’s conviction and ordered the trial court to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The high court declined to apply the amendments retroactively.
“While his case was pending on appeal, the General Assembly passed the amendments to give the adult court jurisdiction, but we conclude that the amendments do not apply retroactively to pending cases,” Justice Christopher Goff wrote for the majority. “Because Brown’s trial was conducted without subject-matter jurisdiction, his conviction is void.”
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter concurred in part with a separate opinion.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush concurred with the majority opinion. Justice Derek Molter also concurred with a separate opinion which Justice Mark Massa joined.
Molter’s opinion commends Geoffrey Slaughter’s separate opinion that concurs in part.
“The Court’s well-reasoned opinion faithfully adheres to our precedents, so I join it in full,” Molter wrote. “But there is also much to commend in Justice Slaughter’s proposal for a clearer judicial presumption that legislation operates only prospectively unless the legislature explicitly directs us otherwise, and I remain open to adopting his proposed rule in a future case.”
The case is Johnny Webster Brown v. State of Indiana, 24S-CR-288.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.