Johnson, Matter of, 7626DC730
| Decision Date | 02 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 7626DC730,7626DC730 |
| Citation | 32 N.C.App. 492,232 S.E.2d 486 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of Donald Fletcher JOHNSON. |
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. William Woodward Webb, Raleigh, for the State.
Public Defender Michael S. Scofield by Asst. Public Defender Mark A. Michael, Charlotte, for the juvenile.
After hearing evidence from the arresting officer, the following transpired:
He admits them.'
No further inquires were made concerning the admission made by counsel.
Thereafter, in the adjudicatory phase of the proceeding, the trial judge made the following finding:
The juvenile urges that the finding based upon his admission should not be permitted to stand because there is no affirmative showing that the admission was intelligently and voluntarily made. We agree.
Such an admission is the equivalent to a plea of guilty by an adult in a criminal prosecution. This Court, in In re Chavis and In re Curry and In re Outlaw, 31 N.C.App. 579, 230 S.E.2d 198 (1976), has already applied the principle of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Harris, 10 N.C.App. 553, 180 S.E.2d 29 (1971); and State v. Ford, 281 N.C. 62, 187 S.E.2d 741 (1972), to juvenile proceedings.
In a juvenile hearing to determine delinquency, which may lead to commitment to a state institution, an admission by the juvenile of the allegations of the petition must be made with awareness of the consequences of the admission and must be made understandingly and voluntarily, and these facts must affirmatively appear in the record of the proceeding. In the record before us there is nothing to indicate the existence of any of these facts.
Since there must be a new hearing, we point out that the trial judge did not indicate the quantum of proof upon which he found the fact that the juvenile carried a concealed weapon on school grounds. The proper quantum of proof in a juvenile hearing to determine delinquency is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Our Supreme Court has held that 'the failure of the trial judge to state that he finds the facts 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not fatal if the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re TEF
...hearing is equivalent to a guilty plea in a criminal case," Chavis, 31 N.C.App. at 581,230 S.E.2d at 200; In re Johnson, 32 N.C.App. 492, 493, 232 S.E.2d 486, 487-88 (1977), we also recognize "there are ... significant differences between criminal trials and juvenile proceedings." Chavis, 3......
-
Martin v. Pope
... ... that the trial court should have granted his JNOV motion and set aside the verdict as a matter of law. We cannot address these arguments because Pope waived them. A JNOV motion is "essentially a ... ...
-
Cannon v. Day
... ... As an initial matter, we address plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' brief and dismiss the appeal. In support of ... Id. ("the evidence shows that Ed Johnson created and then maintained the road incident to express permission given by Sollie Stroud and not ... ...
-
In the Matter of R.M., No. COA06-730 (N.C. App. 2/20/2007)
...of an admission by a juvenile is tantamount to the acceptance of a guilty plea by an adult in a criminal case. In re Johnson, 32 N.C. App. 492, 493, 232 S.E.2d 486, 487-88 (1977). The juvenile did not proffer any admission to the offenses. Instead, the juvenile testified and denied the offe......