C.E.B. v. State
Decision Date | 29 December 1994 |
Citation | 661 So.2d 786 |
Parties | C.E.B. v. STATE. CR 93-1813. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sherryl Snodgrass Caffey, Huntsville, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., Ward Beeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from the order of the Juvenile Court of Madison County ordering the transfer of C.E.B., a juvenile and the appellant, to circuit court for criminal prosecution as an adult on a charge of capital murder. That order of transfer must be reversed.
During the probable cause phase of the transfer hearing, the only evidence presented by the State against the appellant was the testimony of James Parker, an investigator with the Huntsville Police Department. Investigator Parker was permitted, over the objection of defense counsel, to testify to statements made by others implicating the appellant in the charged offense.
"[A]t a juvenile transfer hearing, hearsay evidence that violates the child's right of confrontation may not even be admitted, much less constitute the sole basis for a finding of probable cause to transfer the child to circuit court, because such a practice violates Rules 11(H) and (I)[, A.R.Juv.P.,] and Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-66(b)."
O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514, 518 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), writ quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala.1992).
Although defense counsel's objections were not as specific as they could have been, see Hudgins v. State, 615 So.2d 1297, 1299 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), her objection--"we would move to dismiss based on lack of probable cause"--was sufficient to preserve the issue for review. See Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So.2d 715, 717 (Ala.1983) () . See also Ex parte Johnson, 620 So.2d 665, 668-69 (Ala.1993).
We decline to address the question whether the appellant's statement to his probation officer was taken in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and his rights under Rule 11(A), A.R.Juv.P. We do note that the appellant was in custody when the statements were given; therefore, those statements are presumed involuntary and inadmissible.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A.P.S. v. State
...admitted, much less constitute the sole basis for a finding of probable cause to transfer the child to circuit court.'" C.E.B. v. State, 661 So.2d 786, 787 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514, 518 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)) (emphasis added). See also W.T.J. v. State, 665 So.......
-
M.L.W. v. State
...while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid. [3]In C.E.B., the ruling in juvenile-transfer hearing was reversed because the investigator "was permitted, over objection of defense counsel, to testify to s......
-
A.P.S. v. State
...was inadmissible at the transfer hearing because its admission violated A.P.S.'s right to confront the witnesses against him. See C.E.B., 661 So.2d at 787 (holding that an investigator's testimony "statements made by others implicating the appellant" was not admissible in a transfer hearing......
-
MBM v. State
...cause to transfer the child to circuit court." O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514, 518 (Ala. Crim.App.1991). See also C.E.B. v. State, 661 So.2d 786 (Ala.Crim.App.1994)(finding of probable cause in a transfer hearing cannot be based solely on hearsay In this case, not only was the only evidence o......