Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-501010, Matter of
| Decision Date | 25 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | CA-JV,JV-501010,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the APPEAL IN MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE ACTION NO.92-0041. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The juvenile appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for two counts of burglary and three counts of theft. He argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to suppress certain incriminating statements he made to the investigating officer. Because the statements may have been induced by a promise or threat, we remand this case to the juvenile court for additional findings.
On a morning in August of 1991, a deputy sheriff was investigating reports that several motorcycles had been stolen the previous night. A neighbor of the juvenile advised the deputy that the juvenile had told him the night before that he planned to steal motorcycles.
The deputy went to the juvenile's home and spoke to the juvenile and his mother. According to the juvenile, the officer told him that other individuals involved had implicated the juvenile in the thefts, and the officer wanted to get the juvenile's side of the story. The juvenile testified that the officer said, "since he already knew pretty much all about it, and he wanted to get my side of the story, it was either I told him the truth or he could take me down and he'd try to get the truth out down in jail or whatever." The juvenile's mother corroborated what the juvenile said. The juvenile admitted to the officer that he and two of his friends had stolen the motorcycles and hidden them in the desert.
It is undisputed that at this point in time the officer had not talked to accomplices who had implicated the juvenile. The officer denied that he told the juvenile about talking to the accomplices or that he, the officer, had said anything about the juvenile going to jail.
The juvenile agreed to show the officer where the motorcycles were located. The officer handcuffed the juvenile and placed him in the police car. After the juvenile directed the officer to the location of the motorcycles, the officer returned him home. The officer never gave the juvenile Miranda warnings.
The juvenile moved to suppress the statements he had made to the officer. Following a voluntariness hearing, the juvenile commissioner ruled that statements made by the juvenile before he was placed in the police car were admissible because until that point the juvenile was not in custody and Miranda warnings were unnecessary. The commissioner suppressed statements made after the juvenile was handcuffed and placed in the police car because the juvenile was then in custody and had not been given his Miranda warnings.
The juvenile contends that the statements he made before being placed in the police car should have been suppressed. He argues that juveniles must be advised of their right to remain silent before questioning even if they are not in custody. He takes the position that Rule 18, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, provides greater protection to juveniles than does Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Rule 18 provides:
RULE 18. STATEMENT OF A CHILD
No extra-judicial statement to a peace officer or court officer by the child shall be admitted into evidence in juvenile court over objection unless the person offering the statement demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that: The statement was voluntary and before making the statement the child was informed and intelligently comprehended that he need not make a statement, that any statement made might be used in a court proceeding, and that he had a right to consult with counsel prior to making a statement and during the taking of the statement, and that, if he or his parents, guardian or custodian could not afford an attorney, the court would appoint one for him prior to any questioning.
Division Two of this court has previously addressed this issue in State v. Berlat, 136 Ariz. 488, 666 P.2d 1097 (App.1983). There the court held that Rule 18 "should not be construed to exclude statements by juveniles where Miranda would not require warnings." Id. at 489, 666 P.2d at 1098. We agree with the holding in Berlat. In the present case, because the juvenile was not in custody when he was questioned at his home, there was no violation of Miranda, and thus the officer was not obligated to give the Rule 18 warnings.
The question whether the juvenile's statement was voluntary is a different matter. Confessions are presumed to be involuntary, and the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a confession was voluntary. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 164, 800 P.2d 1260, 1272 (1990). "Under Rule 18, the voluntariness of a juvenile's statement is judged according to the totality of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Timothy C., In re
...Navajo County Juv. Action No. JV91000058, 183 Ariz. 204, 206, 901 P.2d 1247, 1249 (App.1995); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-501010, 174 Ariz. 599, 601, 852 P.2d 414, 416 (App.1993). We will not reverse a determination that a confession is voluntary absent clear and manifest error. 1 Am......
-
In re Jorge D.
...at 522. This court remanded for a voluntariness hearing. Id. at 433-34, 752 P.2d at 522-23. ¶ 22 In Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-501010, 174 Ariz. 599, 852 P.2d 414 (App.1993), the juvenile appealed from an adjudication of delinquency. Id. at 600, 852 P.2d at 415. He argued that h......
-
Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV91000058, Matter of
...To establish their admissibility, the State must prove the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-501010, 174 Ariz. at 601, 852 P.2d at 416 (citing State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 164, 800 P.2d 1260, 1272 (1990)). To be voluntary, "[a] confes......