J.D.L., Jr. v. State, J-88-1061

• Decision Date: 25 October 1989
• Docket Number: No. J-88-1061,J-88-1061
• Citation: 782 P.2d 1387
• Parties: J.D.L., JR., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1387

782 P.2d 1387

J.D.L., JR., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. J-88-1061.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 25, 1989.

An Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County; Thomas H. Alford, Associate District Judge.

J.D.L., a juvenile, was certified to stand trial as an adult for the offenses of First Degree Murder and First Degree Burglary in the District Court of Muskogee County. Said Order of Certification is AFFIRMED.

Jamie D. Pybas, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Dist. Atty., Muskogee, for appellee.

OPINION

LUMPKIN, Judge:

J.D.L., Jr., the fourteen year old Appellant, has appealed a determination by the District Court of Muskogee County that he be certified to stand trial as an adult charged with the crimes of First Degree Murder and First Degree Burglary. That certification was based upon a finding that there was prosecutive merit to the crimes charged and that this juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system.

Evidence presented at the prosecutive merit hearing and the certification hearing revealed that on September 5, 1988, Mrs Theresa Timmons was found by officers of the Muskogee Police Department in her home, dead due to massive blunt injuries to the head. Mrs. Timmons had phoned the police earlier in the day concerning an intruder she had confronted in her house. She informed police that a young black male had been to her house two times earlier that day. She had seen him through the peep hole in her front door, but did not answer the door when he rang the bell. Approximately twenty minutes after the young man's second appearance she heard a loud noise upstairs. Investigating the source of the noise, Mrs. Timmons encountered a young black male coming down the stairs who then exited the house through a sliding glass door. Mrs. Timmons told police that it was the same person who had previously come to her door. When relatives could not reach Mrs. Timmons by phone later that evening the police were dispatched to her residence. The interior of the house showed signs of a struggle and Mrs. Timmons was found on the floor of her kitchen with extensive wounds to the head and multiple abrasions to the rest of her body. In a series of statements to police, Appellant admitted to being at Mrs. Timmons home and ringing the front doorbell several times. Receiving no response, he walked around to the back, climbed over a fence and entered the back yard. Finding a ladder in the carport, he placed it against the house and climbed to the second floor where he pushed in an air conditioning window unit and entered the house. As he started down the stairs, he met Mrs. Timmons so he ran out the back door. Appellant further stated that he ran to his grandfather's house where he changed clothes and returned to Mrs. Timmons house approximately twenty minutes later to see if she could identify him. When she came to the door, Mrs. Timmons recognized him instantly as having just been in her house. Appellant said that Mrs. Timmons stabbed him in the finger with a sharp instrument and then ran upstairs. He chased her through the house with Mrs. Timmons falling over the coffee table and hitting her head. Recovering, she went into the kitchen where she fell near the refrigerator. An electric sander on top of the refrigerator fell and hit her on the head. Appellant said he then picked up the sander and hit Mrs. Timmons a number of times.

In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the admission of his confession claiming that it was not a voluntary statement made after a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights. Both the State and the Appellant correctly state that the privilege against self-incrimination applies in juvenile cases. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 22, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1458, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 543 (1967). That right is further extended by 10 O.S. 1981, § 1109(a) with the requirement that the juvenile's rights be explained in the presence of a parent, guardian, attorney or legal custodian. This statute creates a mandatory rule and literal compliance is sufficient unless there is evidence that either or both did not understand the rights. S.R.L. v. State, 733 P.2d 885, 887 (Okl.Cr.1987).

The record of the prosecutive merit hearing reflects that Mrs. Lewis brought her son to the attention of the police after hearing a description of Mrs. Timmons' assailant and being unable to account for the whereabouts of Appellant during that time period. Detective Grayson testified that Appellant was taken to the police station where he was given the Miranda warning in the presence of his mother. Sergeant Whyman read the Miranda warning from a prepared sheet and paused after each question to ask if the Appellant and his mother understood. Once completed, the form was signed by the parties. (PM Tr. 21-23, 39) Information from the Appellant caused the officers to return with Appellant and his mother to Appellant's residence to retrieve items of evidence. Appellant was subsequently placed under arrest and returned to the police station. Appellant was read the Miranda warning a second time in the presence of both his mother and father. (PM Tr. 30) Detective Grayson testified that he asked the Appellant and both his parents if they understood the rights that had been read to them. All parties indicated that they understood. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis also indicated that they thought that Appellant had understood his rights. (PM Tr. 30-31) Appellant admitted to his participation in the offense after the second set of warnings was given.

Appellant argues that he did not knowingly waive his rights because he was not able to confer with his parents alone and have them explain the rights to him and because he was not adequately warned that he could be tried as an adult. No request by Appellant or his parents for privacy is reflected in the record. See Devooght v. State, 722 P.2d 705, 710 (Okl.Cr.1986). Further, this Court has held that warning of possible adult prosecution is not a constitutional requirement. Matter of V.W.B., 665 P.2d 1222, 1223 (Okl.Cr.1983). When the State can show that both the juvenile and parent intelligently received knowledge of their rights and knowing these rights, waived them, the results of the interrogation will be admissible at a subsequent hearing to certify the juvenile. J.A.M. v. State, 598 P.2d 1207, 1209 (Okl.Cr.1979). We find the evidence is sufficient to show compliance with Section 1109(a) and that both Appellant and his parents understood their rights and that Appellant knowingly and intelligently waived them.

Appellant also contends that his confession was the result of a coercive interview. This allegation is not supported by the record. However, this determination is limited to the admissibility of the confession at the prosecutive merit hearing. The voluntariness of the statement may be determined during the juvenile's trial as an adult, after a motion to supress the confession has been filed and evidence presented specifically addressing the admissibility of the confession. See C.J.W. v. State, 732 P.2d 908, 910 (Okl.Cr.1987). Accordingly, this assignment of error is denied.

Appellant contends in his second assignment of error that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence prejudicial photographs having no probative value or relevance to the proceedings before the court. The record reflects that three photographs were admitted into evidence during the prosecutive merit hearing. State's Exhibits Numbers 1 and 2, photographs of an electric drill and an electric sander, respectively, discovered at the scene, were admitted without objection by the defense. State's Exhibit Number 3, a photograph of the victim as discovered at the scene, was admitted over defense objections. These three photographs as well as approximately twenty other photographs depicting various aspects of the crime scene, possible murder weapons and the victim were admitted into evidence during the Certification Hearing, over objections by the defense.

Whether to admit or exclude photographic evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Standridge v. State, 701 P.2d 761, 765 (Okl.Cr.1985). Photographs are admissible if they tend to "make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." 12 O.S. 1981, § 2401. See Jones v. State, 738 P.2d 525, 528 (Okl.Cr.1987). Even when relevant, however, photos may be excluded if the trial judge determines that their "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ..." 12 O.S. 1981, § 2403.

Title 10 O.S. 1981, § 1112(b) sets forth specific criteria to be considered in determining whether to certify the...