B.F., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] B.F. appeals the juvenile court's order modifying his dispositional decree regarding his placement. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2024, the State filed a petition alleging B.F. was a delinquent for committing acts which if committed by an adult would constitute Count I, dealing in cocaine as a level 2 felony, Count II, possession of cocaine as a level 3 felony, Count III, possession of a controlled substance as a level 6 felony, Count IV, dealing in marijuana as a level 6 felony, and Count V, dangerous possession of a firearm as a class A misdemeanor. That same month, the State filed a Motion for Waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction. In October 2024, the State further alleged Count VI, dealing in a counterfeit substance as a level 6 felony.

[3] On October 28, 2024, B.F. and the State entered an Admission Agreement pursuant to which B.F. agreed to admit to Counts IV, V, and VI. B.F. and the State agreed to a disposition of probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction (the “DOC”). The State agreed to withdraw its Motion for Waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction and to dismiss the other charges as well as an allegation of possession of marijuana under a separate cause number.

[4] On January 15, 2025, the court held a dispositional hearing. On January 16, 2025, the court entered a Dispositional Decree which adjudicated B.F. a delinquent, placed him on formal probation, and suspended commitment to the DOC.

[5] On March 10, 2025, the State filed a Verified Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree alleging that on or about March 20, 2025, B.F. committed the act of dangerous possession of a firearm as a level 5 felony and unlawful possession of a firearm as a class A misdemeanor, he violated the condition of probation by possessing a weapon,¹ and he tested positive for marijuana on January 29, 2025, and February 27, 2025.² It stated that B.F.’s “newest arrest for Dangerous Possession of a Firearm/F5 is ․ a direct file case.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 156. It also stated that “Probation notes that information was received regarding youth being shot in the hand on or about 2/28/25.” Id.

[6] On April 14, 2025, the State filed an Amended Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree alleging that a community safety probation officer completed a compliance check at B.F.’s home and discovered marijuana in an ashtray in B.F.’s bedroom and found multiple firearms, 1.5 pounds of marijuana, 25 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, and multiple THC gummy packages in the residence. The State alleged that a case was opened in “adult court” under cause number 49D20-2503-F5-8388 (“Cause No. F5-8388”) with respect to the charge of dangerous possession of a firearm as a level 5 felony.³ Id. at 160. On May 20, 2025, the State filed an Amended Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree alleging that B.F.’s “levels of marijuana continue to go up since February.” Id. at 164.

[7] On May 28, 2025, the court held a hearing. The prosecutor asked the court to take judicial notice of the entire case file including the dispositional order from January 15, 2025, the conditions of probation that have been filed, Cause No. F5-8388, and “the probable cause affidavit within that.” Transcript Volume II at 17. B.F.’s counsel stated that she had no objection to the dispositional order or probation conditions but objected to the probable cause affidavit and stated, “As these matters are still pending, they have not been adjudicated in the adult court, and the hearing we are here today for is part of the allegations in the adult matter.” Id. at 17-18. She later asserted that the probable cause affidavit “contains multiple levels of hearsay because we have what officers are saying happened” and “[n]one of these officers are present today.” Id. at 18. The prosecutor asserted that “this is a modification hearing hearsay is admissible, a probable cause affidavit sworn to by an officer and specifically these allegations were done by police officers, investigations, and it would be highly relevant and reliable to this matter.” Id. The court granted the request to take judicial notice of the documents.

[8] The State presented the testimony of Marion County Probation Officer Ryann Foster. Officer Foster testified that she had access to probation records, Probation Officer Celso Fuentes was the officer assigned to B.F., and she had the opportunity to review Officer Fuentes's file records. The prosecutor asked if the notes indicated that probation received a report regarding B.F. being shot in the hand on February 28, 2025. B.F.’s counsel acknowledged that “hearsay is admissible in a modification hearing,” but objected on the basis of “hearsay within hearsay.” Id. at 20. The court overruled the objection.

[9] Officer Foster testified that Officer Fuentes conducted drug screens on B.F. and that drug screens of B.F. occurred on January 29, 2025, and February 27, 2025. She testified that the probation department received results from the laboratory of those screens. When asked for the results, B.F.’s counsel objected on the basis of reliable hearsay. The court stated, “I find the reliability here probation filed the reports, ․ and the lab report can speak for itself in this matter.” Id. at 21. After some discussion, Officer Foster testified that the results of the drug screens of January 29th and February 27th were positive for marijuana. She also testified that “[e]very single 1 of his drug screens have been positive.” Id. at 23. She stated that other substances for which B.F. tested positive included “most recently methane or amphetamines and cocaine.” Id. She also indicated that the probation department was aware of the new arrest that had been filed in adult court.

[10] Officer Foster testified that the records showed that Probation Officer Dante Dunn conducted a compliance check at B.F.’s home on April 4, 2025. B.F.’s counsel objected on the basis of “multiple levels of hearsay again.” Id. at 24. Officer Foster testified that Officer Fuentes took information from Officer Dunn's notes which were in the probation records and that she had access to those records. She indicated that “those notes are done within the ordinary course of business ․ within the probation department.” Id. at 25. B.F.’s counsel objected regarding “triple hearsay,” and the court overruled the objection. Id. Officer Foster testified that marijuana was discovered in B.F.’s bedroom on April 4, 2025. She testified that multiple firearms were discovered in the house as well as psilocybin mushrooms and THC gummy packages. She also testified that the notes from probation indicated that B.F.’s levels of marijuana had continued to increase since the testing conducted in February.

[11] The court stated that there was no reason to believe that the information upon which Officer Foster testified “was not ․ within her own knowledge” or “lacked an indicia of reliability.” Id. at 31. It stated that “[t]he State asked me to take judicial notice of probable cause affidavit,” and “I'm going to go 1 step further also and in [Cause No. F5-8388], take notice of the order finding probable cause in that case as well as the information filed in the case, the probable cause affidavit, and of course the dispositional order in this case, and ․ the conditions of probation document.” Id. at 31-32. It granted the request of B.F.’s counsel for a modification report, ordered that B.F. be detained in the Youth Services Center until further order, and scheduled a hearing for June 25, 2025.

[12] On June 23, 2025, the State filed a Modification Report prepared by Officer Fuentes. On June 25, 2025, the court held a hearing. The court asked B.F.’s counsel if she had any corrections or additions to the Modification Report, and B.F.’s counsel answered, “No, Your Honor.” Id. at 40. On June 30, 2025, the court entered a Modified Dispositional Decree on Delinquency awarding wardship of B.F. to the DOC for housing in any correctional facility for children “until the age of 21, unless sooner released by the” DOC. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 183.

Discussion

[13] B.F. argues that the juvenile court erred when it admitted hearsay testimony that was not substantially trustworthy and when it relied on that evidence to modify his disposition to placement in the DOC. He asserts that Officer Foster's testimony “was entirely based on hearsay within hearsay.” Appellant's Brief at 11. B.F. points to Officer Foster's testimony that some reports indicated that laboratory analysis showed positive drug test results for B.F. He also points to Officer Foster's testimony about the results of the compliance check of his home as being unreliable because the “information came from a probation officer's report and that ․ probation officer obtained the information from another person's notes.” Id. at 12. He also argues that, while the Rules of Evidence do not traditionally apply at a modification hearing, due process requires the proponent of evidence to establish its reliability.

[14] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); see also K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (applying abuse of discretion standard where juvenile challenged modification of placement to DOC following her violation of terms of suspended commitment), trans. denied. However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6, which provides 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 (most family like) and most appropriate setting available” and “close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child”; least interferes with family autonomy; is least disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian. Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available applies only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. 2007) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6).

[15] Certain “juvenile matters are of such gravity that formal evidentiary hearings are required.” N.L. v. State, 989 N.E.2d 773, 779 (Ind. 2013). “For example, ‘fact-finding hearings’ under Indiana Code 31-37-13 are held to determine whether the allegations of a delinquency petition are true—analogous to a criminal trial.” Id. “At evidentiary hearings, the rules of evidence apply to the same extent as in a criminal case, even though juvenile hearings are civil in nature.” Id. (citing J.R.T. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 300, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (barring polygraph evidence on hearsay grounds, unless parties have stipulated its admissibility), trans. denied; K.F. v. State, 961 N.E.2d 501, 514-515 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (finding error in admission of hearsay contrary to Ind. Evidence Rule 801), trans. denied). However, “hearsay is admissible in dispositional hearings, and subsequent hearings to modify a disposition, because ‘[e]xcluding hearsay evidence ․ would in many cases disserve the child by excluding relevant information that might support a less restrictive disposition.’ ” Id. (quoting In re L.J.M., 473 N.E.2d 637, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)). “At these hearings, the court may also admit any predispositional report into evidence to the extent it is probative, ‘even if the report would otherwise be excluded.’ I.C. § 31-37-18-2(a) (governing dispositional hearings); I.C. § 31-37-21-3(a) (governing reports prepared for review or modification hearings).”⁴ Id.

[16] Regarding juvenile disposition modifications specifically, Ind. Code § 31-37-22-3(b) states in part that “the probation officer shall give notice to the persons affected and the juvenile court shall hold a hearing on the question.” This Court has concluded that, “[w]hile the statute does not explicitly define the type of hearing required, our consideration of basic due process principles instructs us an evidentiary hearing is required.” In re M.T., 928 N.E.2d 266, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We explained that “basic due process principles and case law precedent lead us to conclude a trial court may not modify a juvenile's disposition without a hearing at which the State presents evidence supporting the allegations listed in the revocation petition.” Id. at 271.

[17] The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the admission of evidence only for abuse of discretion. K.F., 961 N.E.2d at 510 (citing Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002)). It is well settled that in juvenile disposition proceedings, hearsay is admissible so long as it bears some substantial indicia of reliability. See C.S. v. State, 817 N.E.2d 1279, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that juvenile court properly considered probation officer's hearsay testimony about drug screen results as the testimony bore “a substantial indicia of reliability”).

[18] Even if the admission of certain testimony was erroneous, it was harmless in light of the evidence submitted and not challenged. The record reveals that the trial court took judicial notice of the charging information, the probable cause affidavit, and the order finding probable cause in Cause No. F5-8388 in which the State alleged that B.F. committed dangerous possession of a firearm as a level 5 felony. The Modification Report, which was filed on June 23, 2025, and was requested by B.F.’s counsel, indicates that it was prepared by Officer Fuentes, whom Officer Foster testified was the officer assigned to B.F. B.F.’s counsel indicated that she had no corrections or additions to the report. In the report, Officer Fuentes indicated that Officer Dunn conducted a search of B.F.’s home on April 4, 2025, which revealed marijuana in B.F.’s bedroom as well as multiple firearms, 1.5 pounds of marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, and multiple THC gummy packages in the home. Officer Fuentes wrote that B.F. “reports that he is trying, but he continues to test positive for illegal narcotics, has been shot and is pending an adult case at time [sic],” and B.F. “struggles in the areas of decision making and processing, this puts him often in vulnerable situations.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 174. He stated that B.F. “can provide answers, he believes adults want to hear, this gets him through conversations but does not work in real time at home or in the community.” Id. Officer Fuentes wrote that, “[i]n 2025, [B.F.] has tested positive for marijuana a total of six times, one time for Amphetamine and one time for Cocaine.” Id. at 175. Under the heading “Compliance with Probation Supervision,” he wrote that B.F. “continues to test positive for illegal narcotics including, Marijuana, Amphetamine and Cocaine,” “information was received regarding [B.F.] being shot in the hand on or about 2/28/25,” and B.F. had a pending charge of dangerous possession of a firearm as a level 5 felony. Id. at 177. The report states that “if [B.F.] is not committed to the [DOC], Probation will recommend for this matter to close as Probation has exhausted all services in the juvenile system and Probation has serious concerns regarding [B.F.’s] and community safety.” Id. at 178. The report also stated that commitment to the DOC “is the most appropriate option at this time” and the DOC “offers numerous treatment programs that will help address [B.F.’s] risks and needs.” Id. at 179. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that B.F. was afforded due process and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying his placement.

[19] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, the State alleged that B.F. “violated standard condition of Probation which states ‘You shall not possess or be around anyone in possession of a gun, rifle, shotgun or other dangerous weapon, including ammunition and look-a-like weapons.’ ” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 156.

2.   At the end of the petition, it lists Probation Officer Celso Fuentes after the statement: “I affirm under penalties of perjury that the foregoing representations and statements are true.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 157.

3.   Indiana's Odyssey Case Management System indicates that a jury trial is scheduled for February 11, 2026, in Cause No. F5-8388.

4.   Ind. Code § 31-37-21-3 is titled “Admissibility of reports and factual summaries of reports,” and subsection (a) provides that “[a]ny report may be admitted into evidence to the extent that the report contains evidence of probative value even if the evidence would otherwise be excluded.” Ind. Code § 31-37-21-3(a).

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.