Smith v. State, 4 Div. 562
| Citation | 484 So.2d 560 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 562 |
| Parties | Tony SMITH and Demetrice Smith v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. Beatty Pearson of Powell, Powell & Pearson, Andalusia, for appellants.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Beatrice E. Oliver, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The two appellants were adjudicated juvenile delinquents on August 1, 1985, by the Covington County District Court, sitting as a juvenile court. Each was placed on probation for one (1) year, and their mother ordered to pay restitution. The only issue raised on appeal concerns compliance with Rule 11(A), Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
The two brothers, aged 11 and 10 at the time, were taken to the Andalusia Police Department for questioning regarding a recent burglary of a local school. The record reflects that the detective attempted to advise the youths of their constitutional rights as follows:
And again on cross-examination:
Rule 11(A), Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure, provides:
Counsel for appellants argues that the conduct of the investigating officer violated this rule in several respects. It is our duty to measure the evidence against the yardstick of Rule 11(A). We cannot conclude otherwise that the rule was not complied with. Subparagraph 4 was not complied with to any extent whatever. The Smiths had explicitly requested "their mamma". The record shows that when Mrs. Smith arrived at the station, the detective talked to her out of their presence. According to the investigating officer, Mrs. Smith "said she just wanted the truth and they may talk to me if she wasn't present, more freely." She then waited outside while her sons were interrogated. The record is silent regarding whether she was told that they wanted their mother, and whether they ever knew that their mother was just outside the door to the interrogation room. Even though the testimony was that the mother chose not to talk to the juveniles, the investigator was not free to interrogate the youths, for they had invoked their right to talk to her. Analogously, if an adult had requested to see his lawyer, but the lawyer said he did not wish to speak to his client and for the police to commence interrogation, the officers could not constitutionally do so. One person cannot waive another's constitutional rights. This rule is highlighted by the officer's testimony in this case that the juveniles had exercised this right by specifically asking to communicate with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.M.M. v. State
...he wishes to talk to a parent, the interrogation must immediately cease.' L.J.V. v. State, 545 So.2d at 245. See also Smith v. State, 484 So.2d 560, 561 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). ".... " 'The rationale of courts holding a child's request to see a parent equivalent to a request to see an attorney, ......
-
Weaver v. State
...that he wishes to talk to a parent, the interrogation must immediately cease.' L.J.V. v. State, 545 So.2d at 245. See also Smith v. State, 484 So.2d 560, 561." 623 So.2d at The uncontroverted facts relevant to Lawson's claim are these: On July 13, 1993, Lawson was arrested and taken into cu......
-
Taylor v. State
...and voluntarily waived his rights and confessed. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Smith v. State, 484 So.2d 560 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The judgment of the juvenile court is AFFIRMED. All Judges concur. ...
-
Smith v. State
...See generally, Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1985); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985)." Smith v. State, 484 So.2d 560, 561-62 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that these confessions were voluntary. The testimony of the police......