## Facts

- Police observed two youths late at night; one held a beer can and was arrested.
- The other youth physically resisted officers’ attempts to detain him and then fled.
- Officers identified the fleeing youth as S.T. through information from others and a photograph.
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging acts that would constitute battery, resisting law enforcement, and underage alcohol offenses if committed by an adult.
- S.T.’s defense at the fact-finding hearing was an alibi: he claimed he was asleep at home during the incident.
- S.T. sought to call two alibi witnesses: his mother (who allegedly woke him to take a phone call) and a friend (who allegedly made the call).
- A local trial-court rule required each party to file a final witness list at least 10 days before trial; defense counsel did not timely disclose the two witnesses.
- At the start of the hearing, the State moved to exclude the witnesses for the rule violation; defense counsel did not object, request a continuance, or propose a lesser sanction.
- The juvenile court excluded both witnesses; S.T. testified without corroboration and was adjudicated a delinquent child.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion or violated S.T.’s right to present a defense by excluding his only two defense witnesses as a sanction for untimely disclosure under a local rule.
2. Whether S.T. received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to witness exclusion or seek a less severe remedy.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing.
- The Court concluded that excluding S.T.’s only two defense witnesses was an improper sanction under the circumstances.
- Because counsel did not object, the Court addressed the error through ineffective-assistance analysis.
- The Court held counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to oppose exclusion or request alternatives (e.g., a continuance).
- The Court found prejudice because the excluded testimony would have corroborated S.T.’s sole defense and could have affected the outcome in a credibility-based case.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have discretion to enforce discovery and witness-disclosure rules, but sanctions must be proportionate and “just and proper” in the circumstances.
- Excluding defense evidence is a severe remedy that should generally be reserved for situations involving bad faith or demonstrated prejudice that cannot be cured by less restrictive measures.
- A defendant, including a juvenile in delinquency proceedings, has a right to present a defense; procedural enforcement cannot be applied in a manner that unjustifiably prevents presentation of material defense evidence.
- Ineffective assistance requires (1) objectively unreasonable performance and (2) a reasonable probability of a different result absent counsel’s errors.
- Failing to object to exclusion of essential defense witnesses, or to request curative measures, can constitute deficient performance when it leaves the defense without meaningful supporting evidence.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new juvenile fact-finding hearing because the exclusion of S.T.’s two key alibi witnesses was disproportionate in the absence of bad faith or demonstrated prejudice to the State, and counsel’s failure to contest the exclusion or seek lesser remedies deprived S.T. of effective assistance and a fair opportunity to present his defense.


S.T. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. 2002)