Leach v. State, 107
| Decision Date | 15 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 107,107 |
| Citation | 428 S.W.2d 817 |
| Parties | Debra Fay LEACH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. . Houston (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Woods, Sigmund A. Horvitz, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Nickola Barrera, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Juvenile Court of Harris County finding appellant, Debra Fay Leach, to be a delinquent child under the provisions of Article 2338--1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. The basis of the charge of delinquency was that appellant 'habitually deports herself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of herself and other(s) in Harris County, Texas, to-wit: Runaway on the 25th day of March, 1967, Runaway on the 30th day of June, 1967, Runaway on the 11th day of July, 1967, and Runaway on the 26th day of July, 1967.' The charge was made under Section 3(f) of the above statute, as amended, providing that a child may be delinquent when he 'habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others.'
In the trial with the aid of a jury, the appellant child was found to be delinquent, and the trial court pursuant to the findings of the jury, entered judgment that Debra Fay Leach was a delinquent child and that she be committed to the Texas Youth Council. The commitment was suspended and appellant was placed in the custody of the Superintendent of Buckners Baptist Childrens Home at Dallas. Judgment was entered on November 2, 1967. Appellant, through her appointed attorney, has perfected an appeal to this court. The State of Texas has not filed a brief.
Judgment of the court below is attacked by reason of alleged self-incriminating statements made by appellant to a probation officer without aid of counsel, whereby the officer gave an opinion as to whether appellant was endangering her morals and health; for failure timely to warn and appoint counsel for appellant; for permitting appellant's mother to testify to certain admissions made by appellant; for permitting the state to prove delinquency by a preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, and because the term 'delinquency' is defined under Texas law vaguely and indefinitely in alleged violation of state and federal due process.
Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, state courts have been required to regard appeals in juvenile cases more strictly in a case where delinquency proceedings may lead to commitment in a state institution. The proceedings must measure up to the essentials of due process, including written notice of the specific charges, notification to the child And his parents of the child's right to be represented by counsel retained by them, or if they are unable to afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed to represent the child; application of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination; and absent a valid confession, a determination of delinquency and an order of commitment based only on sworn testimony subjected to the opportunity for cross-examination in accordance with federal constitutional requirements. See also Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct . 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84.
In this case the appellant child was brought to the Harris County Juvenile authorities and placed in the detention ward at the request of her parents on or about July 28, 1967, with the parents' hope that the juvenile authorities could be of help both to the parents and the child. The juvenile authorities attempted to cooperate, and from the record we believe they did so with some success. However, the child remained in the detention ward from about July 28, 1967, until about September 19, 1967, before counsel was appointed for her . Meanwhile, during appellant's incarceration, Mrs. Nelva Wagner, a probation officer with the Juvenile Probation Department, interrogated the child, a girl about twelve years of age, concerning the incidents made the basis of the charges, including her social needs and her general background. This was done in the absence of an attorney and in the absence of any warning or admonition given the child by anyone. She was not advised that the court would appoint an attorney for her in the event she could not afford to employ one. The record is silent concerning any warning or admonition or that she had the right to remain silent under the circumstances, or that counsel was available to her if she desired one. There is no evidence of waiver of the above rights in the record, even if it could be said that a child of twelve years is able effectively to waive any of her constitutional rights.
No written confession was taken or attempted to be taken from appellant, and none was offered in evidence against her at the trial. But the testimony and unsupported conclusions of Mrs. Wagner were admitted before the jury which found appellant to be a delinquent child.
In re Gault, supra, holds that a probation officer is also an arresting officer and cannot act as counsel for the child. 387 U.S. 36, 87 S.Ct. 1428. See Art. 2338--1, Sec. 11, V.A.C.S. The Supreme Court further noted that admissions and confessions of juveniles require special caution, and it noted the anomaly in applying the privilege against self-incrimination in favor of hardened criminals when children had not been afforded the right. The court held directly that the privilege against self-incrimination is constitutionally applicable in the case of juveniles just as it is with respect to adults. No one can doubt that testimony by an officer as to an opinion of guilt based upon obvious self-incriminating statements made by an adult accused, without benefit of counsel or any type of warning or admonition while under arrest, would be obvious error and a clear violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. See Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. In re Gault requires that the same principles applicable to adults be applied to juveniles in this type of case when the question reaches constitutional dimensions. As the Court said in Gault:
(Parenthesis added.)
In the case at bar, Mrs. Wagner, over proper objections of appellant's counsel, stated that after conversing on numerous occasions with appellant, she had formed an opinion as to whether Debra Fay Leach was endangering the morals of herself and the health of herself by reason of the alleged runaways. She further testified that appellant was definitely endangering her morals by the runaways and what took place during the runaways. She further testified that appellant was endangering her health. The opinions were based on Mrs. Wagner's experience with juvenile cases of similar type and based upon her qualifications as an expert in the fields of sociology and social welfare.
Inculpatory admissions made prior to a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, or opinions based thereon, are not admissible. Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra; In re Gault, supra; Choate v. State, 425 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ hist. Texas had never required a juvenile to testify against herself or to give evidence that will tend either directly or indirectly to incriminate her either in a civil or criminal case. Dendy v. Wilson 142 Tex. 460, 179 S.W.2d 269, 151 A.L.R. 1217. In the case of a twelve-year-old girl, the propriety of the application of these rules is undoubted.
As further observed in Gault:
(Parenthesis added.) 387 U.S. 24, 87 S.Ct. 1441.
We believe that the above trial judge and the Juvenile Department did what they though was necessary to accord fairness to the child and aid to the parents. However, in view of what we believe to be clear violations of federal due process, in that counsel for the appellant was not timely appointed to safeguard appellant's rights, in failing to warn her of her constitutional rights and privileges, and in permitting the above witness to testify as to her opinion on a standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K. W. B., In Interest of, KCD
...264 Cal.App.2d 816, 70 Cal.Rptr. 749, 751(1) (App.1968); Lopez v. United States, 399 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1968); Leach v. State, 428 S.W.2d 817, 820(5) (Tex.Civ.App.1968); State v. Prater, 77 Wash.2d 526, 463 P.2d 640, 644(3) (1970). The decisions of our own courts have assumed the applicabil......
-
Fletcher, In re
...it does, there was compliance with it in this case on two different occasions. See In re Creek, D.C.App., 243 A.2d 49 (1968) and Leach v. Texas, 428 S.W.2d 817 (tex.Civ.App.1968). We emphasize that the Miranda warnings were repeated twice in this case because in People v. Hill, 39 Ill.2d 12......
-
Ciulla v. State
...v. State, 192 S.W.2d 329 (Amar.Civ.App.1946, n.w.h.); Choate v. Texas, 425 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Civ.App., 1st Dist., 1968, n.w.h.); Leach v. State, 428 S.W.2d 817 (Houston Civ.App., 14th dist., 1968, For many years it has been clear, under Texas decisions, that if an officer sees a person violat......
-
E. S. G. v. State
...evidence, or whether the essentials of due process were observed. Cf. In re Gault, 387 U .S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527; Leach v. State, 428 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston (14th) 1968, no This case was originally drawn by Justice Cadena, and while we find no disagreement with the e......