C.J. v. State

• Decision Date: 23 January 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-255
• Citation: 141 N.E.3d 830
• Parties: C.J., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

141 N.E.3d 830

C.J., Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-255

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed January 23, 2020

Attorney for Appellant: Brian A. Karle, Ball Eggleston, PC, Lafayette, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Matthew B. Mackenzie, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

May, Judge.

[1] The trial court adjudicated C.J. as a delinquent for acts that would constitute Level 4 felony child molesting¹ if committed by an adult. He raises one issue on appeal, which we restate and expand to two issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence collected during an interrogation of C.J. because C.J. had not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights before being interrogated by a police officer, and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the true finding without considering the evidence derived from the interrogation. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History²

[2] C.J., a twelve-year-old boy, lived in Indianapolis with his Mother, Stepfather, four-year-old sister A.T., and eleven-year-old brother A.J. In October 2018, A.J. walked into a bedroom and saw A.T. with her pants down and C.J.'s face close to her rear end. A.J. told Mother what he saw. Mother called a "crisis hotline" and then took the children to the hospital. (Tr. Vol. II at 15.) Medical personnel performed a sexual assault assessment on A.T. but did not discover any signs of trauma. Hospital staff contacted the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS"), and DCS contacted law enforcement. Around 3 p.m. the next day, Mother and the three children went to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to speak with Detective Eli McAllister.

[3] Detective McAllister escorted C.J. to a room in the police station and left him alone for approximately fifty minutes. While waiting, C.J. sprawled on the floor, curled up into his shirt, drummed on the seat of a chair, sang, and played with his sock. Eventually, Mother and Detective McAllister entered the room, and Detective McAllister acknowledged that C.J. was "tired and sleepy." (State's Ex. 3 at 15:20:55.)³ He told C.J. that it was C.J.'s decision whether to talk with him. C.J. and Detective McAllister then proceeded to talk about C.J.'s school, hobbies, chores, and bikes.

[4] After a few minutes of informal conversation, Detective McAllister redirected the conversation to C.J.'s interactions with A.T. the night before by saying: "Hey man, I think you know why you're here today." (Id. at 15:31:20.) Detective McAllister then proceeded to review the waiver of rights form with C.J. and Mother. The waiver of rights form stated:

Beforewe ask you any questions, you must understand your rights.

1. You may have one or both of your parents present.

2. You have the right to remain silent.

3. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you in court.

4. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning.

5. If you cannot afford a lawyer and you want one, one will be appointed for you by the court before questioning.

6. If you decide to answer questions now, without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You will also [have] the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.

(State's Ex. 1) (emphasis in original).

[5] Detective McAllister read each line of the waiver form and waited for C.J. and Mother to acknowledge that they understood. At times, C.J. interrupted Detective McAllister to talk about police television shows. C.J. also asked for and received clarification from Detective McAllister regarding rights 5 and 6. Detective McAllister assured C.J. and Mother that they would have time alone and unrecorded to discuss whether C.J. wished to waive his rights. Both C.J. and Mother signed the waiver of rights form acknowledging they had read and understood the six rights listed above.

[6] Detective McAllister then took C.J. and Mother to a room where they could consult in private. Detective McAllister reentered the interrogation room, and C.J. and Mother returned to the interrogation room a short time later.⁴ Upon returning to the room, Detective McAllister indicated Mother informed him off camera that C.J. wanted to talk to him without Mother present, and C.J. confirmed he wanted to talk to Detective McAllister alone. Detective McAllister then went over the final three warnings on the waiver of rights form with both C.J. and Mother, which stated:

1. I have read the above rights and I understand and know what I am doing.

2. We have been allowed time to consult without a police officer present.

3. I expressly waive the above rights.

(State's Ex. 1) (emphasis in original). C.J. asked about the meaning of the word "expressly." (State's Ex. 3 at 15:43:32.) Detective McAllister clarified the term, and both C.J. and Mother signed the waiver of rights form. Detective McAllister and Mother then exited the interrogation room so that Detective McAllister could escort Mother back to the front of the police station. While alone in the interrogation room, C.J. hummed, moved chairs, danced, clapped, and laughed.

[7] Detective McAllister returned and resumed the interrogation with C.J. alone. C.J. initially denied touching A.T. C.J. talked about cars, his difficulties spelling and reading, and fights with other children at his school. Over the course of the interrogation, Detective McAllister accused C.J. of lying and stated that he knew what really happened. C.J. eventually admitted touching and licking A.T.'s rear end. C.J. also acknowledged he might have touched her vagina.

[8] C.J. told Detective McAllister he realized he would likely get into trouble when A.J. walked in on C.J. and A.T. Detective McAllister asked C.J. if C.J. knew better than to touch and lick A.T.'s rear end, and C.J. acknowledged that he did know better. C.J. claimed he did it even though he knew better because A.T. asked him to. Detective McAllister asked C.J.: "Why do you think you ... shouldn't have done that stuff? Shouldn't have touched her or licked her down there?" (Id. at 16:19:05—16:19:10.) C.J. shrugged, and Detective McAllister continued, "What reason? Why is it wrong?" (Id. at 16:19:11 – 16:19:15.) C.J. characterized his behavior as "bad" but could not give a reason why it was bad. (Id. at 16:19:35-16:20:00.) Detective McAllister then suggested that A.T.'s age, A.T.'s lack of maturity, and A.T. being not as big as C.J. were why the behavior was wrong.

[9] C.J. was arrested and charged with acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Level 3 felony child molesting⁵ and Level 4 felony child molesting. The juvenile court held a delinquency hearing on January 3 and 4, 2019. Mother, A.J., A.T., and Detective McAllister testified at the hearing. At the hearing, Mother testified that:

Detective [McAllister] was really uh let me think of the word—convincing on why I should let [C.J.] talk to him by himself and that he felt it would be best for him to talk to [C.J.] by himself and at that point, I felt like he was friendly towards me and that he wanted the best interest and so I allowed that but now that all of this has happened, I wish I wouldn't have.

(Tr. Vol. II at 18.) Mother also testified that C.J. told her he did not understand the rights on the waiver form, but she did not testify as to when or where C.J. told her he did not understand. At the conclusion of the hearing, the State dismissed the Level 3 felony child molesting allegation, and the court entered a true finding as to the Level 4 felony. The court placed C.J. on probation and ordered placement at a behavior health services provider as a condition of probation.

Discussion and Decision

[10] C.J. challenges the trial court's admission of evidence collected during his interrogation by Detective McAllister. Trial courts retain broad discretion in ruling on the admission of evidence, and we will reverse only upon finding an abuse of discretion. S.G. v. State , 956 N.E.2d 668, 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied . An abuse of discretion is "a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court." Id. However, when the issue is one of constitutional law, as in the case at bar, we review the claim de novo . See Brittain v. State , 68 N.E.3d 611, 616-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied .

[11] C.J. argues his statements should not have been admissible because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution protect Indiana citizens from self-incrimination and prohibit the use of involuntary statements against a criminal defendant. D.M. v. State , 949 N.E.2d 327, 332 (Ind. 2011). These protections apply not only in court proceedings but also during custodial interrogations. Id. at 333.

[12] In the context of juvenile interrogations, Indiana law requires additional procedural safeguards beyond those required by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).⁶ Id. Indiana Code section 31-32-5-1(2) governs the waiver of juvenile rights during interrogation, and that statute states in relevant part:

Any rights guaranteed to a child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only:

* * * * *

(2) by the child's custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if:

(A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right;

(B) that person has no interest adverse to the child;

(C) meaningful consultation has occurred between that person and the child; and

(D) the child knowingly and voluntarily joins with the waiver[.]

Ind. Code § 31-32-5-1(2).

[13...