M.B.M. v. State, 6 Div. 165
| Decision Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 165 |
| Citation | 563 So.2d 5 |
| Parties | M.B.M. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roger C. Appell, Birmingham, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the order of the Jefferson County Juvenile Court transferring the appellant's case to circuit court.
On March 6, 1989, the appellant was charged in the Jefferson County Juvenile Court with the capital murder of George H. Hale, Jr.Also, on that same date, a delinquency petition was filed against the appellant and the State filed a motion to transfer his case to the Jefferson County Circuit Court.Following a hearing on the State's motion and consideration of the factors set forth in § 12-15-34, Code of Alabama(1975), the Juvenile Court held that probable cause existed to find that the appellant had committed capital murder and granted the motion to transfer.
The appellant argues that the warnings given to him by police prior to his questioning fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 11(A), A.R.J.P., in that they failed to contain a statement that "reasonable means" would be provided for him to communicate with his parents.Appellant likewise argues that certain language contained in the warnings that the police read to him was confusing.He therefore argues that the Juvenile Court erred by admitting into evidence the statement that he gave to police.
The appellant was under investigation for the murder of George H. Hale, Jr.Mr. Hale died as a result of severe blunt force trauma to the head, and his wife was knocked unconscious during the attack, by another man.Although Mrs. Hale was unable to identify her assailant, she identified her husband's attacker as a Steve Jackson.Mrs. Hale told the police that Jackson had been with the appellant in her backyard on the day before the murder.During their investigation, the police also found the appellant's name, address, telephone number, and the name of the appellant's grandmother on a slip of paper near the Hales' kitchen telephone.
On the night of the murder, Sergeant Paige Forrest Duncan of the Birmingham Police Department interviewed the appellant at his home.The appellant's grandmother, father, and brother were present during the interview.Sergeant Duncan asked the appellant if he knew anything about what had transpired at the Hale residence that evening, and the appellant replied that he had been to their home to borrow some tools.Sergeant Duncan then asked the appellant in the presence of his family if he would accompany him to the police station to give a statement.After being read his rights, the appellant gave a statement explaining his various contacts with the Hales.The appellant, however, denied returning to the Hale residence after borrowing the sledgehammer.Subsequently, Sergeant Duncan met the appellant at school and again asked him to come down to the police station.Sergeant Duncan was aware at this time of the appellant's involvement in the murder, since Mario Burks, the person known by the Hales as Steve Jackson, had given a full statement which implicated the appellant.Prior to meeting the appellant, Duncan called the appellant's grandmother and stated that he needed to speak with the appellant again but did not indicate to her that the appellant was a suspect in the murder.Sergeant Duncan also did not tell the appellant that he was a suspect when he met him at the school.
When they reached the police station, Sergeant Duncan, who was accompanied by Sergeant Don Reynolds, informed the appellant of his rights, reading from a juvenile waiver-of-rights card that stated as follows:
Beneath this was a paragraph that stated:
The appellant signed and dated this form, as did Sergeant Reynolds.
Sergeant Duncan then asked the appellant if he understood all of his rights, and the appellant replied that he did.Duncan testified that the appellant's physical appearance was normal, that his speech was coherent, and that no promises or offers of leniency were made to the appellant to induce him to make a statement.Duncan testified that the appellant initially denied any involvement in the murder and that he continued to profess his innocence even after Duncan advised him that Mario Burks had given a statement to police "which told the full story."Duncan testified that, in his opinion, the appellant thought that he was bluffing, so Duncan played a small portion of Burks's statement for him.A short time later, the appellant gave a statement in which he admitted involvement in the murder.The appellant stated that, on the night of the murder, he hid in some bushes by the Hales' front door while Mario Burks got the victim to come outside.Burks grabbed Mr. Hale as he turned to go back inside, at which time the appellant hit Hale twice in the head with a metal rod from a barbell set.The appellant took the wallet belonging to the victim, which contained $52.00, and the two men left.
In the case sub judice, the appellant argues that the omission of the phrase "reasonable means will be provided" from the language informing him that he could communicate with his attorney, parent, or guardian, as contained in Rule 11(A)(4), A.R.J.P., rendered his statement involuntary and therefore inadmissible against him in the transfer hearing.In support of his argument, appellant relies on our Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006(Ala.1985).However, the facts of Whisenant are readily distinguishable from those of the present case.
In Whisenant, supra, the juvenile was given only those warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966); no mention was made of his rights under Rule 11(A)(4), A.R.J.P., to communicate with his parent or guardian.In reversing the decision of this Court that the statement of the juvenile was admissible, our Supreme Court held as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers v. State
...from seeing his parents and that the appellant never asked to see either of his natural parents or a lawyer. See M.B.M. v. State, 563 So.2d 5 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). The fact that the appellant's parents, in hindsight, wished that they had been present during the questioning of the appellant d......
-
Burks v. State
...See McConico v. State, 575 So.2d 1256 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (conviction for felony-murder affirmed by memorandum). See also M.B.M. v. State, 563 So.2d 5 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (appeal from the order of the juvenile court transferring codefendant McConico to circuit court). "While the trial judge may......
-
Ward v. State
...the opportunity to talk with his parents.” In rejecting the defendant's argument, this Court relied on its decision in M.B.M. v. State, 563 So.2d 5 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), in which it held that “the confession was not rendered involuntary by the fact that the rights read to the defendant did n......
-
State v. R.C.
...the opportunity to talk with his parents.’ In rejecting the defendant's argument, this Court relied on its decision in M.B.M. v. State, 563 So.2d 5 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), in which it held that ‘the confession was not rendered involuntary by the fact that the rights read to the defendant did n......