In re Luis P., 148 SSM 25

• Decision Date: 11 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 148 SSM 25,148 SSM 25
• Parties: In the MATTER OF LUIS P., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

32 N.Y.3d 1165
117 N.E.3d 814
93 N.Y.S.3d 255 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF LUIS P., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

No. 148 SSM 25

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided December 11, 2018

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

32 N.Y.3d 1166

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Respondent Luis P.'s challenge to the admission of his statements—insofar as preserved (see People v. Panton, 27 N.Y.3d 1144, 1145, 37 N.Y.S.3d 58, 57 N.E.3d 1095 [2016] )—presents a mixed question of law and fact (see Matter of Jimmy D., 15 N.Y.3d 417, 423, 912 N.Y.S.2d 537, 938 N.E.2d 970 [2010] ). Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts' determination that respondent's statements were voluntary, that issue is beyond further review by this Court (see id. ). Further, any hearsay error in the admission of certain medical records relating to the complainant was harmless.

RIVERA, J. (dissenting).

I would reverse and remit for a new fact-finding hearing for the reasons set

93 N.Y.S.3d 256

117 N.E.3d 815

forth in the dissent below ( Matter of Luis P., 161 A.D.3d 59, 78–90, 74 N.Y.S.3d 221 [1st Dept. 2018] [Gesmer, J., dissenting] ).¹ During his interrogation at the precinct, respondent stated that he understood his Miranda rights and waived them while his mother was present, but then he was questioned after his mother had left the room. After respondent made a short oral statement, the detective asked respondent, who himself had previously been a victim of sexual abuse, if he wanted to write an "apology note" to the complainant – which suggested that the letter was private. The officer made no mention of the apology note in front of respondent's mother. The officer's deception undermined the Miranda warnings, putting in question whether respondent understood

32 N.Y.3d 1167

that his letter and statements could be used against him in a court proceeding. As the dissent below correctly concluded, relying on this Court's guidance in Matter of Jimmy D. , 15 N.Y.3d 417, 912 N.Y.S.2d 537, 938 N.E.2d 970 (2010), that the court must analyze the statements of children under the totality of the circumstances, the written confession was not voluntary since it was obtained through deception.

Additionally, this Court held in Jimmy D. that the parent of a child has the right to attend the child's interrogation by a police officer but that a confession obtained in the absence of a parent is not necessarily involuntary ( 15 N.Y.3d at 422–23, 912 N.Y.S.2d 537, 938 N.E.2d 970 ). Here, although respondent's mother was present during the Miranda warnings, she is...