Edwards v. State

• Decision Date: 05 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 51683,51683
• Parties: In the Interest of Roy D. EDWARDS, a male minor, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1006

608 P.2d 1006

227 Kan. 723

In the Interest of Roy D. EDWARDS, a male minor, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee.

No. 51683.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 5, 1980.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The exclusionary rules, pertaining to illegally obtained confessions, are equally applicable to waiver proceedings in juvenile court under K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-808, as to other juvenile proceedings or criminal trials.

2. Where a juvenile is being questioned by the police in connection with criminal acts and is given the Miranda warnings, it is not necessary that he be specifically advised that his statement can be used against him in adult criminal proceedings where under the circumstances he is aware that criminal prosecution is a possibility.

Christopher P. Christian, of Foulston, Siefkin, Powers & Eberhardt, Wichita, argued the cause, and M. Kay Royse, Wichita, was with him on the brief for appellant.

Paul W. Clark, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., Vern Miller, Dist. Atty., and Michael Barbara, Asst. Dist. Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.

PRAGER, Justice:

This is a juvenile waiver proceeding, brought under K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-808, to determine whether Roy D. Edwards, a minor, age 16, is a fit and proper person to be dealt with under the juvenile code. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the district court waived juvenile jurisdiction and ordered that Edwards be criminally charged and tried as an adult. This appeal followed.

Edwards was charged in juvenile court with seven counts of felony theft (K.S.A.1979 Supp. 21-3701), five counts of burglary (K.S.A. 21-3715), two counts of aggravated burglary (K.S.A. 21-3716), and two counts of first-degree murder (K.S.A. 21-3401). The charges stem from an alleged crime spree of Edwards and another juvenile, Kenny Crease, in August of 1979. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that the two juveniles committed a series of burglaries and thefts at a number of residences in Wichita during that month. There was evidence indicating that on August 30, 1979, in the course of a burglary at the Temple residence, the two young men fired weapons killing a married couple who were sleeping at the time. Following the shooting, the two juveniles fled from the house but returned 30 minutes later. Finding no commotion or activity, they reentered the house and took the keys to the Temple car parked in the garage and proceeded to drive the car from the premises.

On Sunday, September 2, 1979, Edwards was arrested at his home pursuant to a warrant charging him with burglary and theft. He was taken to the sheriff's office and then to an interview room. Edwards was given the Miranda warnings. He stated that he understood his rights and so indicated in writing. The detective advised Edwards that he was being investigated for murder and that it would be best if he told the truth. Edwards then proceeded to make a statement to the detective in which he implicated himself in the Temple burglary and homicide. After one-half hour and a short break, a second interview was held with Edwards. The interviewing detective referred to the prior Miranda warnings, but did not again explain them to him. During this second interview, Edwards admitted committing a number of other burglaries prior to committing the burglary at the Temple home. Both the first and second interviews were taped. A third interview was held and a statement taken on September 4, 1979, at approximately 11:20 p. m. Earlier that day, a petition had been filed in Sedgwick County Juvenile Department, charging him with seventeen felony counts. These three incriminating statements were admitted into evidence at the juvenile waiver hearing. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a probation officer as to Edwards' social and psychiatric history and his prospects for rehabilitation. Also the directors of various state juvenile facilities testified as to the programs, conditions, and treatment available at the various facilities. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district judge waived juvenile jurisdiction and directed the district attorney to prosecute Edwards as an adult under the applicable criminal statutes.

Appellant Edwards' first point on the appeal is that the trial court erred in receiving into evidence his three confessions mentioned above. He contends that where a juvenile is being questioned by the police in connection with criminal acts, in addition to the traditional Miranda warnings required, the juvenile must be specifically advised that his statement can be used against him in an adult criminal prosecution. Appellant argues that, without this additional warning, the admission of a juvenile's confession violates his right against self-incrimination. Appellant reasons that a juvenile, who is not specifically warned that his statement can be used later in an adult criminal proceeding, is incapable of voluntarily and knowingly waiving his privilege against self-incrimination.

Appellant correctly points out that the rights declared in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were extended to juveniles by In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). In Gault, the United States Supreme Court recognized the problems involved with a juvenile waiver of constitutional rights, charging the courts to first ascertain whether the admission was voluntary, and "not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair." p. 55, 87 S.Ct. p. 1458. This court has, likewise, been concerned with the problem of a juvenile's voluntary and knowing waiver of his right against self-incrimination. State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 552 P.2d 905 (1976); State v. Oberst, 127 Kan. 412, 273 P. 490 (1929).

The exclusionary rules, pertaining to illegally obtained confessions, have been considered equally applicable to waiver proceedings in juvenile courts, as to juvenile proceedings or criminal trials. See e. g. State v. Strickland, 532 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn.1975). In J.T.P. v. State, 544 P.2d 1270 (Okl.Cr.1975), the Oklahoma court held that proceedings to certify a minor to stand trial as an adult were "comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution," and, therefore, must comply with the essentials of due process and fair treatment. The court further held that statements which would be inadmissible in juvenile proceedings or criminal trials were, likewise, inadmissible in certification proceedings. In In re Harris, 218 Kan. 625, 629, 544 P.2d 1403 (1976), this court, like the Oklahoma court, viewed a waiver hearing to be so closely related to a specific criminal prosecution that the same policy considerations are applicable. We have concluded that statements which are inadmissible in other juvenile proceedings or in criminal trials are likewise inadmissible in juvenile waiver proceedings.

Having determined that any incriminating statements of Roy D. Edwards must have been voluntarily obtained before becoming admissible in his juvenile waiver proceeding, we must next consider appellant's contention that his confessions were not voluntary because the Miranda warnings given did not include a specific additional warning that any statement given might be used in adult proceedings subsequently brought against him. It should be noted that prior to making a statement, Edwards was advised that any statement he made could be used against him in court. The issue presented has been raised in a number of jurisdictions and it has consistently been held that, although the juvenile must be made aware that criminal prosecution as an adult is a possibility, he need not be specifically warned that any statements given might be used in adult criminal proceedings. In State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28, 558 P.2d 756 (1977), the juvenile defendant, seventeen and one-half years old, was charged with murder. He was given the traditional Miranda warnings at various times after which he made incriminating statements. The court held that where the criminal ramifications were obvious, the defendant was charged with notice that any statements given after the Miranda warnings...