Matter of Steven William T.

Decision Date16 December 1997
Docket NumberNo. 23976.,23976.
Citation499 S.E.2d 876,201 W.Va. 654
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesIn the Matter of Steven William T.

Aaron C. Amore, Public Defender, Martinsburg, for Steven William T.

Michael D. Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, Bernice Weinstein, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Charles Town, for the State.

WORKMAN, Chief Justice:

Steven William T.,1 (hereinafter "Appellant" or "Steven") a juvenile, appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County transferring Steven to adult jurisdiction after Steven was charged with first degree murder. On appeal, he contends that the lower court erred in transferring him to adult status. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 19, 1995,2 Ms. Judy Jenkins was murdered in her own home by two gunshot wounds to the head. Initial investigation centered upon Mr. Johnson Lykens, a married man with whom Ms. Jenkins had allegedly had an affair, and Ms. Barbara Milburn, who had lived with Ms. Jenkins for many years. Although Steven, age fourteen at the time of the murder, was the biological son of Ms. Milburn's sister, Priscilla T., Steven had resided with Ms. Milburn for most of his life.3 During the initial investigation, Steven reported that he had been awakened by the sound of gunshots and had seen Ms. Milburn when he awoke. He also reported that he had seen Mr. Lykens with Ms. Jenkins' gun approximately six months prior to the fatal shooting.

On December 18, 1995, during the course of an investigation regarding alleged arson on her property, Ms. Milburn confessed to the arson and the murder of Ms. Jenkins. In her confession, Ms. Milburn accepted full responsibility for the murder and indicated that Steven had assisted her in the disposal of the gun by throwing it into the Shenandoah River.

A. Steven's First Statement

On December 19, 1995, at approximately 8:00 a.m., police began questioning Steven at the Jefferson County State Police barracks in Charles Town, West Virginia. Three people were present with Steven when he arrived at the police barracks: his biological mother, Priscilla T., who had voluntarily relinquished custody to Ms. Milburn when Steven was a baby; Ms. Carla Whetzel, a friend of Ms. Milburn's who had moved in with Ms. Milburn in October 19954; and Christine T., Steven's sister. Based upon the December 4, 1995, document signed by Ms. Milburn allegedly transferring custody of Steven to Ms. Whetzel if "anything happened" to Ms. Milburn, Trooper Jose Centano of the West Virginia State Police believed that Ms. Whetzel was Steven's legal custodian. Trooper Centano asked both Priscilla T. and Ms. Whetzel to remain in the room during the interview, but Priscilla T. and Christine chose not to remain in the room. Steven's Miranda5 rights were explained to him, he initialed each right as it was specified to him, and Ms. Whetzel also signed the rights form. Ms. Whetzel consented to having the police take Steven's statement, and she was present during the questioning.

By approximately 8:20 a.m., Steven admitted that he had assisted Ms. Milburn in the disposal of the gun. He indicated that Ms. Milburn had awakened him and had informed him that she had shot Ms. Jenkins. He also reported that Ms. Milburn had instructed him to get out of bed and go with her in the car to a bridge over the Shenandoah River. According to Steven's statement, Ms. Milburn then allegedly instructed Steven to throw the gun into the river. This first interview apparently concluded at approximately 10:00 a.m. Trooper Centano testified that although he believed that he had sufficient information to arrest Steven as an accessory after the fact, he did not know whether Steven had told him the truth since Steven had lied to him in the initial inquiry into the murder.

Trooper Centano admitted during the transfer hearing that he had probable cause to arrest Steven for the aiding and abetting charge after the first confession. However, when asked what "more" he needed after that first confession, he replied that he wanted "[t]he truth" and was interested in what other crimes Steven may have committed. Trooper Centano even informed Steven after the first confession that he was being charged with the crime of aiding and abetting. Trooper Centano also testified at the transfer hearing that he was "confused" after Steven's confession to aiding and abetting and that he telephoned the prosecuting attorney, Michael Thompson, to determine what evidence he needed as a prerequisite to charging Steven with aiding and abetting murder. Trooper Centano testified that Mr. Thompson raised the issue of whether Trooper Centano believed that Steven was telling the truth. During the preliminary hearing, Trooper Centano testified that "based on his knowledge of the law, defendant's statement was sufficient to charge someone with aiding and abetting but then again, the object of the investigation was the murder, not just the aiding and abetting."

Based upon Trooper Centano's determination that discrepancies existed in Steven's statement and the trooper's belief that Steven had not revealed the entire truth, Trooper Centano asked Steven if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. Steven consented to the polygraph test after discussing the issue with Priscilla T. and Ms. Whetzel. Trooper Centano contacted Trooper Mark Carte of the Martinsburg detachment and requested assistance in administering a polygraph test to Steven. At approximately noon6 on December 19, 1995, Trooper Carte arrived and spoke with Steven alone for approximately thirty to forty minutes. Trooper Carte's notations regarding the interview, as read by Trooper Carte during the transfer hearing, reveal that "Steven became emotional and started crying during the pre-test interview. Steven was observed to sit staring at the floor placing his head down in his hands at points of the interview." The session with Trooper Carte ended when Steven refused to undergo the polygraph test.

B. Steven's Second Statement

Subsequent to Steven's refusal to take the polygraph test, Trooper Centano entered the room and asked Steven if he wanted to talk. According to the statement of Trooper Centano, Steven asked to speak with Trooper Centano privately. Ms. Whetzel and Steven's biological mother left the room crying, and they later testified that they knew as they exited the room that Steven was going to confess to the murder of Ms. Jenkins. According to the testimony of Trooper Centano, once Steven and Trooper Centano were alone in the room, Steven began crying again and told Trooper Centano that he had "helped." When Trooper Centano asked him what he meant by "helped," Steven began attempting to say something which Trooper Centano was unable to understand due to Steven's crying. When Steven finally stated that he had shot Judy Jenkins, Trooper Centano asked both Ms. Whetzel and Steven's biological mother to return to the room. At approximately 1:30 p.m., in the presence of Ms. Whetzel and his biological mother, Steven provided a second statement in which he stated that he had fired the first shot that hit Judy Jenkins. He explained that he had fired that shot while Ms. Jenkins was sleeping in her bed. He then explained that he had taken the gun to Ms. Milburn because he was unable to shoot Ms. Jenkins a second time. Steven explained that he and Ms. Milburn watched Ms. Jenkins get up and go into the bathroom. According to Steven's statement, Ms. Milburn then allegedly told Steven to go to the camper, and Ms. Milburn thereafter shot Ms. Jenkins a second time.7

Due to inclement weather conditions, Trooper Centano had to travel to the home of a magistrate in order to present Steven before the magistrate. This occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on December 19, 1995.

C. Transfer to Adult Jurisdiction

During a psychological evaluation with clinical psychologist Dr. F. Scott Bailey in May 1996, Steven informed Dr. Bailey that he had confessed to the murder in order to protect Ms. Milburn and that Ms. Whetzel had encouraged him to take the blame.8 He further maintained that his original statement was true: he had been awakened by the sound of gun shots and Ms. Milburn had come to him, told him that she had shot Judy, and that she needed help disposing of the gun. Steven further disclosed that although he had personally made the decision to take the blame, Ms. Whetzel had coached him regarding exactly what to tell the police.9 Steven also stated that he had only admitted to shooting Ms. Jenkins because of pressure from Ms. Whetzel. Dr. Bailey tested Steven and concluded that Steven has an average intelligence and an IQ of 95. Dr. Charles Cantone, Steven's retained psychologist, measured Steven's IQ as 76, evidencing a borderline range of intelligence. Dr. Cantone explained that he believed that the 76 IQ was a depressed estimate and that Steven actually functioned in the low normal range.

On June 7, 1996, the lower court held a hearing on Steven's motion to suppress the confession, and on June 11, 1996, the transfer hearing was held. The lower court determined that Steven's confession was admissible and that the State had shown probable cause to believe that Steven had committed the act of first degree murder. The lower court further reasoned "[t]hat whether the juvenile herein by his confession was his attempt to aid the adult co-defendant, Barbara Milburn, would go to the weight to be given to his statements and confession and can not be laid at the State's feet." The lower court further found that "any delay was not for an impermissible purpose; That December 19, 1995 was a snowy day, closing the Magistrate Court; that the request for a polygraph of the juvenile herein following his first statement of December 19, 1995 was for the purpose of resolving conflicts in said statement of the juvenile...." Steven was thereafter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. I.F. (In re I.F.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Febrero 2018
    ...statement of Liu, J.) [collecting cases and statutes].) One such state was West Virginia, from which In the Matter of Steven William T. (1997) 201 W.Va. 654 ( Steven William T. ) originates.I.F. offers Steven William T. for the proposition that a minor has an independent right to the advice......
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 4 Diciembre 1998
    ...777 (1998) (describing the Court's independent evaluation as "de novo or plenary review"); Syl. pt. 3, in part, Matter of Steven William T., 201 W.Va. 654, 499 S.E.2d 876 (1997) (indicating the applicable review by this Court is "`plenary, independent, and de novo'" (citation omitted)); Tol......
  • State v. Rivas
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 2017
    ...counsel contexts. Some have required the presence of a parent before a valid waiver may be made. See, e.g. , In re Steven William T. , 201 W.Va. 654, 499 S.E.2d 876, 884 (1997) ; see also In re K.W.B. , 500 S.W.2d 275, 283 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) ; In re Aaron D. , 30 A.D.2d 183, 290 N.Y.S.2d 9......
  • State v. Horse
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 24 Abril 2002
    ...if he has a conflict of interest with the child or has no real parental relationship with the child. See Matter of Steven William T., 201 W.Va. 654, 499 S.E.2d 876 (1997) (relative who was also suspect had conflict of interest). The record indicates that, although defendant's most recent re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...and the interested adult, there is a duty to make further inquiries to find an appropriate adult to be present. In Re Steven William T., 499 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 1997). There are a couple of excellent law review articles summarizing the problems and policy issues that arise when parents or ot......
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...and the interested adult, there is a duty to make further inquiries to ind an appropriate adult to be present. In Re Steven William T., 499 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 1997). There are a couple of excellent law review articles summarizing the problems and policy issues that arise when parents or oth......
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...and the interested adult, there is a duty to make further inquiries to ind an appropriate adult to be present. In Re Steven William T., 499 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 1997). There are a couple of excellent law review articles summarizing the problems and policy issues that arise when parents or oth......
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ...and the interested adult, there is a duty to make further inquiries to ind an appropriate adult to be present. In Re Steven William T., 499 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 1997). There are a couple of excel-lent law review articles summarizing the problems and policy issues that arise when parents or ot......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT