M.E., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In May of 2025, M.E. and two other individuals, all of whom were residents of Valle Vista Hospital in Greenwood, broke into a nurse's station, slightly injured a registered nurse, and destroyed computer equipment and various files. When police arrived and attempted to take M.E. into custody, M.E. forcibly resisted and, later, bit one of the officers on the hand. The State petitioned to have M.E. found to be a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be various crimes if committed by an adult. After M.E. admitted to committing what would be two counts of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult, the juvenile court ordered M.E. committed to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). M.E. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing M.E. to the DOC. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 10, 2025, Greenwood Police Officer Evan Kistner and other officers responded to an active disturbance at Valle Vista, at which M.E. was a resident. Officer Kistner found M.E. and another juvenile in a nurse's station and observed that the “area had been trashed[,]” with medical documents and broken computer equipment scattered on the floor. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 33. Officer Kistner removed a piece of a broken monitor from M.E.’s hand, concerned that M.E. might try to use it as a weapon. When Officer Kistner attempted to detain M.E., M.E. attempted to strike him and kicked him in the leg. Officer Kistner took M.E. to the floor with a balance-displacement technique, and M.E. continued to physically resist and spit at the officers. Officer Kistner and another officer managed to handcuff M.E.

[3] Officer Kistner spoke with Registered Nurse Jack Williams, who explained that M.E. and two others had forced their way into the nurse's station, causing cuts to Williams’ hand in the process, and had begun “throwing files around” and destroying electronics. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 33. Meanwhile, as Officer Mitchell Wildman attempted to escort M.E. to the jail van, M.E. dropped down and refused to walk, attempted to kick Officer Wildman, attempted to flee, and ultimately had to be lifted into the van. Upon arrival at the Johnson County Juvenile Detention Center, M.E. was taken inside, where M.E. twice attempted to kick Officer Wildman in the genitals and, after he removed M.E.’s handcuffs, bit him on the hand and scratched him on the arm.

[4] On May 16, 2025, the State petitioned to have M.E. found to be a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be two counts of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official, two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, if committed by an adult.¹ Because M.E. was a ward of the Indiana Department of Child Services in Delaware County, the case was transferred there. On May 19, 2025, the juvenile court ordered that M.E. be temporarily detained in the detention center. On May 18, 2025, M.E. admitted to having committed what would be two counts of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

[5] At the dispositional hearing on June 18, 2025, M.E. appeared in shackles due to violent behavior. M.E.’s probation officer informed the juvenile court that due to M.E.’s needs and ongoing behaviors, placement in a residential facility was precluded. The probation officer also indicated that community supervision was not an option because M.E. could not be safely maintained in the community and recommended that M.E. be placed in the DOC. M.E.’s mother agreed with the probation officer's placement recommendation. Neither M.E. nor M.E.’s parents wanted M.E. placed in the home, and M.E. refused to be placed in residential treatment, even admitting to having sabotaged previous residential placements. The juvenile court ordered M.E. to be committed to the DOC.

Discussion and Decision

[6] M.E. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering M.E. committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile delinquent is committed to the juvenile court's sound discretion, “subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the community's safety, and the Indiana Code's policy of favoring the least harsh disposition.” E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. A juvenile court's disposition will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if its action is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id.

[7] “Although the juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child, its discretion is circumscribed by statute.” R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 provides, in part, that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that [․] is [․] in the least restrictive [․] and most appropriate setting available[.]” Although the statute requires the least-restrictive placement when appropriate, it recognizes that, at times, the best interests of the child are better served by a more-restrictive placement. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[8] We have little trouble concluding that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in ordering M.E. committed to the DOC. For one thing, other, less-restrictive means of rehabilitation had repeatedly been attempted without success. M.E. was already in a less-restrictive, residential placement when M.E. committed the delinquent acts in this case. While awaiting disposition, M.E. had been placed in juvenile detention, but the juvenile detention center had not been able to maintain M.E.’s safety because M.E. had continued to engage in self-harm and aggression toward staff. M.E. had appeared at the dispositional hearing in shackles due to M.E.’s violent behavior.

[9] Moreover, mostly due to M.E.’s behavior, commitment to DOC seemed to be the only viable option left to the juvenile court. Neither M.E. nor M.E.’s parents wanted M.E. placed in the home, and M.E. indicated a preference for “[c]orrections” over another residential placement, even admitting to “sabotaging” previous residential placements. Tr. Vol. II p. 64. While M.E. was on the waitlist for placement at residential treatment facilities like Safe Passage, Bashor, and Neuro Diagnostic Institute, M.E.’s behavior had made placement at those facilities unlikely. Bashor likely would not have had a bed available for M.E. for at least six months in any event, and no other residential treatment facility would accept M.E. The juvenile court noted that “[a]ll rehabilitative options in Delaware County have been exhausted” and concluded that “the only safe location for [M.E.] at this time is the [DOC.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 86.

[10] In summary, the juvenile court considered M.E.’s history and the numerous opportunities M.E. had had for less-restrictive placement, none of which had been successful. The juvenile court also noted the uncontradicted evidence that placement in the DOC was the only viable placement option left under the circumstances. In light of this and the copious evidence of M.E.’s “inability to regulate [M.E.’s] aggression[,]” Tr. Vol. II p. 87, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that M.E. be committed to the DOC. See, e.g., J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[I]t is well settled that there are times when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society.”) (citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).

[11] We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   One of the allegations of Class A misdemeanor battery and the allegation of criminal mischief were based on events that had occurred on April 22, 2025.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.