In The Matter Of J.D.R.
| Decision Date | 07 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08 JB 441,NO. COA0 9-1340,COA0 9-1340,08 JB 441 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF J.D.R. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General William P. Hart, Jr., for the State.
Richard Croutharmel, for juvenile-appellant.
Appeal by juvenile from orders entered by Judge J. Calvin Hill in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 2010.
Juvenile J.D.R. appeals from an order finding him to be a delinquent juvenile on the grounds that the trial court erred by concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of responsibility that (1) he wantonly and willfully burned a schoolhouse in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-60 and (2) that he created a public disturbance that interfered with the education of others in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6).1 In addition, Juvenile argues that the trial court erred by denying hismotion to suppress an inculpatory statement on the grounds that he had not freely and voluntarily waived his rights against selfincrimination. After careful consideration of the arguments that Juvenile has advanced on appeal in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's orders should be affirmed.
At approximately 1:30 p.m. on 20 November 2 0 08, Matthew Carpenter, a teacher at Erwin High School in Asheville, North Carolina, smelled smoke. Upon briefly investigating the situation, Mr. Carpenter discovered that the smoke was emanating from a bathroom located immediately outside his classroom on the third floor. After Mr. Carpenter opened a panel on the bathroom's wall, a considerable amount of smoke escaped, prompting him to direct a fellow teacher to pull the nearby fire alarm.
Edward Burchfiel, Erwin's principal, was in his office when the fire alarm sounded. After locating the source of the alarm on the fire alarm panel in his office, Mr. Burchfiel and Assistant Principal Terry Gossett immediately went to the third floor in order to assess the situation. After discovering burning paper towels at the bottom of a pipe chase that was accessed through the bathroom wall, Mr. Gossett put out the fire using a fire extinguisher. Approximately 13 0 0 people were evacuated from the school for safety-related reasons as a result of the fire.
Buncombe County Arson Task Force Investigator Jeffrey Tracz came to Erwin for the purpose of investigating the incident. Upon arriving at the school, Officer Tracz went to the third floor bathroom. After examining the situation there, Officer Tracz determined that the fire did not have an electrical origin and ruled out other causes as well. Ultimately, Officer Tracz concluded that someone had started the fire, as opposed to it having begun spontaneously. At that point, Officer Tracz headed to the first floor administrative offices in order to speak with the alleged culprits.
In the meantime, Assistant Principal Jim Brown examined surveillance videos for the purpose of identifying the individuals who had been in the vicinity of the bathroom prior to the start of the fire. The video evidence showed that Juvenile and a second student had entered the bathroom around the time that the fire began. After identifying the two juveniles, Dr. Brown had them taken to separate first floor offices and questioned. Mr. Burchfiel questioned Juvenile while Dr. Brown questioned the other student.
At the beginning of his conversation with Mr. Burchfiel, Juvenile denied any involvement in setting the fire. Subsequently, however, Juvenile admitted that he and the other student had entered the bathroom together, that he had handed a cigarette lighter to the other student, and that the other student lit and quickly dropped a paper towel down the pipe chase. The other student independently confirmed Juvenile's account while talkingwith Dr. Brown. In a written statement which he prepared at Mr. Burchfiel's request, Juvenile stated that "[w]e walked into the bathroom and my friend... was in the back stall looking down into the hole and it caught a paper towel on fire to start it so we got up and got out of there."
After Juvenile drafted this statement, Officer Tracz joined the investigation. Officer Tracz read a Constitutional Rights Warning/Waiver certificate to Juvenile and explained this document to Juvenile's father upon his arrival at the school. Juvenile's father instructed his son to cooperate with the investigation.
On 20 November 2008, Juvenile, a freshman at Erwin, ate lunch in the school cafeteria with his mother, who was at the school in order to discuss concerns that Juvenile was being bullied. After finishing lunch, Juvenile announced that he needed to go to the bathroom. Juvenile's mother directed him to use the third floor bathroom in order to avoid encountering the alleged bully. In addition, Juvenile's mother asked the other student to accompany Juvenile in case he encountered the bully. After the two students reached the bathroom, Juvenile mentioned that he had a cigarette lighter and said that he had previously thrown a cigar down a pipe chase which was accessed through a panel in the bathroom wall. The other student ignited a paper towel with Juvenile's lighter and dropped the burning towel down the pipe chase. After looking into the pipe chase and seeing a spark, Juvenile attempted to extinguish the fire by putting water into a plastic bag and pouring it downthe pipe chase. As a result of his belief that any fire that might have been set in the pipe chase had been extinguished, Juvenile closed the panel leading to the pipe chase, after which the two students left the bathroom. In light of his concern that another individual in the bathroom had observed him in possession of the cigarette lighter, Juvenile hid it outside the school after departing from the bathroom.
On 22 December 2008, Officer Tracz filed two juvenile petitions with the Buncombe County District Court, one of which alleged that Juvenile should be adjudicated delinquent for having violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-60 () and the other of which alleged that Juvenile should be adjudicated delinquent for having violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6) (). Both petitions were approved for filing on 30 December 2008. On 13 July 2009, Juvenile filed a motion seeking the suppression of "the statements made by the Juvenile on or about the 20th day of November, 2008, which the Juvenile is informed, believes and, therefore, alleges[] the State intends to use at the adjudicatory hearing of this case."
On 13 July 2009, adjudication and disposition hearings were conducted before the trial court. The trial court denied Juvenile's suppression motion on the grounds that Juvenile "was not in custody when [the] statement was given" and that his statement "was given freely and voluntarily." At the conclusion of theproceedings, the trial court adjudicated Juvenile as delinquent on the basis of findings that he was responsible for committing both of the offenses alleged in the petitions and found that Juvenile was within the trial court's dispositional authority as a result of the fact that he had committed serious offenses as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2508(a). At the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the trial court determined that it was required to order a Level 1 disposition and placed Juvenile on probation for a period of twelve months subject to the supervision of a court counselor. Juvenile noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's orders.
In his first argument on appeal, Juvenile contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the statement that he gave to Mr. Burchfiel. In essence, Juvenile contends that he was in custody at the time that he gave this statement, that Mr. Burchfiel was acting on behalf of law enforcement at the time that he questioned Juvenile, that he was not properly advised of his constitutional and statutory rights before making his statement to Mr. Burchfiel, and that Juvenile's statement to Mr. Burchfiel was not freely and voluntarily made. We disagree.2
In the event of an appellate challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court's findings of fact are binding if supported by competent evidence, even though the record may also contain evidence that would support a contrary finding as well. On the other hand, the trial court's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review and must be legally correct and supported by the findings of fact. State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 336, 543 S.E.2d 823, 826 (2001). We now proceed to evaluate Juvenile's appellate challenge to the trial court's decision to deny his suppression motion in light of the applicable standard of review.
The custodial interrogation of criminal suspects conducted by law enforcement officials is subject to procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 706 (1966). The protections afforded by Miranda and codified and enhanced in the juvenile context by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101(a) "apply only to custodial interrogations by law enforcement." In re J.D.B., 363 N.C. 664, 669, 686 S.E.2d 135, 138 (2009). In other words, a juvenile is not entitled to the exclusion of evidence obtained in the absence of effective warnings under Miranda and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101(a) unless he or she was "in custody" at the time the incriminating statement was made. Id.; see also Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 337, 543 S.E.2d at 826 (citing Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306-07, 84 L. Ed. 2d 222, 230-31 (1985)).
A suspect has been subjected to custodial interrogation if, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a "formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of...
To continue reading
Request your trial