LaRocca, In Interest of
| Decision Date | 12 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 9470,9470 |
| Citation | 363 So.2d 1325 |
| Parties | In the Interest of Frankie Jo Angel LaROCCA. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Occhipinti, Grace, Berger & Dunford, Christopher T. Grace, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant, Frankie Jo Angel LaRocca.
Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and GARRISON, JJ.
Frankie Jo Angel LaRocca was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in proceedings in the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Jefferson on November 2, 1977. This judgment was based on a finding that Frankie Jo Angel LaRocca was guilty of simple criminal damage to property in violation of R.S. 14:56. She was placed on active probation for an indefinite period, and she has appealed.
Frankie was a thirteen-year-old white female in November 1976, when she was charged with writing obscenities on the bathroom walls at Mount Carmel Academy, where she was a student in the ninth grade. During November 1976, a series of detailed accounts of a sexual relationship between a male teacher at the school and the author began to appear on the bathroom walls of Mount Carmel. The police were contacted by Sister Mary Grace, Principal of Mount Carmel Academy, and were requested to investigate the matter.
The first writings, dated "11-5-75," were discovered on November 8, 1976, and more were discovered on the 9th. Two detectives from the Juvenile Division, Detectives Johnston and Jackson, went to Mount Carmel on the morning of November 12th, to view the writings and to begin the investigation. Some of the writings had already been removed from the walls by the cleaning crew, but color Polaroid pictures had been taken of all the walls before cleaning, and these photographs were made available to the police. After examining these writings, the conclusion of the police was that all the writing appeared to be by the same author, even though it was a combination of block printing and script.
A list of possible suspects was drawn up from names supplied by various students and teachers, but no conclusions about the author could be drawn by the officers by a comparison with writing samples. The teacher who was the subject of most of these writings was unable to come up with the names of any students who might have a grudge against him, or otherwise want to make him look bad.
No new writings appeared until the morning of November 19th, on the walls of the first-floor restroom. Photographs were taken, and although more students were questioned, no new information was obtained as to the authorship. On the same day, various writings were discovered on the outside walls of the gym and on a statue outside the school, but these were found to have no relationship to the bathroom writings.
Later on the same day more new writings appeared between 1:10 p. m. and 2:15 p. m. in the third-floor bathroom. After coming out to Mount Carmel again to observe these new writings, the detectives asked Sister Mary Grace to get handwriting samples from the prime suspects, and they would get a handwriting expert to examine the writings on November 22nd. Detective Molligan, an expert in handwriting analysis, along with several other detectives, went to Mount Carmel on the 22nd to attempt identification. When Detective Molligan saw Frankie LaRocca's handwriting on her school enrollment application, he noted the similarity to the writings in the bathrooms and asked for additional examples of Frankie's handwriting.
Sister Mary Grace contacted Mrs. LaRocca and, after being advised as to what was going on, Frankie's mother agreed to accompany Frankie to Mount Carmel for questioning. When they arrived at Mount Carmel, the police report that Frankie was advised of her rights by Detective Molligan, and they received permission from her and from her mother prior to questioning. Frankie testified that she remembers hearing them tell her and her mother about having an attorney, but she thought that was mentioned After the questioning and was in reference to an attorney for a court appearance. She did not remember being told of her right to remain silent. Mrs. LaRocca testified that she did not remember being advised of any rights, but that she did consent to Frankie's being questioned alone. She gave her permission for the handwriting analysis, but said the police told her they were convinced that Frankie was responsible for these writings and led her to believe that if things were settled they wouldn't have to go to court.
Frankie was first questioned in the presence of her mother and Sister Mary Grace, but when this questioning led nowhere, the officers felt that Frankie might speak more freely outside the presence of her mother and the nun, and questioned her alone. Finally, in the presence of Detectives Molligan and Johnston, Frankie orally admitted to having written the obscenities on the bathroom walls. According to the police, she withdrew her admission after she found out that her mother would be informed of the exact contents of the writings, and said that she had confessed only because she was afraid. However, Frankie testified that she confessed only because the officer kept telling her that he was an expert, that he knew she had done it, and that if she would admit it, it would all be over and she would not have to go to court. She said that they kept after her, she got tired, so she finally screamed that she had done it to make them stop.
Frankie never made a written confession, and she denied her oral confession shortly after having made it. She did, however, consent to giving a handwriting sample to the police. After examination and comparison of the samples with the wall writings, Detective Molligan decided that Frankie was the author of the writings based on significant similarities without unexplainable differences.
It was upon this evidence (the oral confession and the handwriting analysis opinion), essentially, that the judge adjudicated Frankie a delinquent. However, there are serious problems with accepting any of this evidence. A juvenile is entitled to the protection of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to all the attendant safeguards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of Aaron
... ... The burden of proving the charge of delinquency against a juvenile and the standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence must meet the Jackson standard. See State in Interest of Franklin, 399 So.2d 671 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1981), No. 14,146; In the Interest of LaRocca, 363 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1978) ... On June 26, 1980, Joseph Jinks, the defendant's accomplice, entered the 7-11 convenience store on O'Neal Lane in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, at approximately 1:45 a. m. The only employee in the store, Charles Grimm, a night clerk and cashier, ... ...
-
State in Interest of Pigott, 15013
... ... art. 13(7), (3). This burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is no less severe than the burden of proof required in an adult proceeding. In Interest of Franklin, 399 So.2d 671, (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981), In Interest of Day, 378 So.2d 511 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), In Interest of LaRocca, 363 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978) ... In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the United States Supreme Court stated that the standard of review of the sufficiency of evidence in federal habeas corpus cases is whether, after viewing the ... ...
-
Franklin, In Interest of
... ... 4 Cir. 1979); State v. Schexnaydre, 215 So.2d 370 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1968). Likewise, the burden of proving the charges against a juvenile and the standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence is no less than against an adult. See In the Interest of Day, supra; In the Interest of LaRocca, 363 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 4 Cir.1978). We find upon review that the State carried its burden of proof ... On the night of April 29, 1980, Detective Pat Walsh, while checking, along with his partner, Detective D'Amico, parked vehicles in the area around the Baton Rouge Centroplex, ... ...
-
Day, In Interest of
... ... In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Likewise, the burden of proving the charges against a juvenile is no less than against an adult. In the Interest of LaRocca, 363 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 4th 1978). We find upon review that the State carried its burden of proof ... The evidence presented by the State included the license number of the vehicle, which was taken down by the victim while the robbery was in progress. This number matched the ... ...