N.B. v. State
| Decision Date | 02 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 55A01–1111–JV–574.,55A01–1111–JV–574. |
| Parties | N.B., Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Glen E. Koch II, Boren, Oliver & Coffey, LLP, Martinsville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellant–Defendant N.B. appeals following the juvenile court's determination that he committed the delinquent act of Reckless Homicide, a Class C felony if committed by an adult. Specifically, N.B. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting his statement to the investigating officer at the evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Eleven-year-old N.B. and six-year-old A.F. were brothers who lived together with Mother, Step–Father,1 a nine-year-old sister, and a three-year-old brother in Morgan County. N.B. and his siblings were often left home alone with N.B. in charge. On a couple of occasions, N.B. had pointed a firearm belonging to Mother and Step–Father at his siblings to scare them into complying with his requests.
N.B.'s previous step-father had begun teaching N.B. about firearms and firearm safety when N.B. was nine years old. N.B. was taught never to touch a firearm without an adult present, always to assume that a firearm is loaded, always to check to make sure that the firearm is empty, and always to ensure that the safety mechanism is on. While hunting with his previous step-father, N.B. had witnessed animals being shot and killed by a firearm.
On June 30, 2011, N.B. and A.F. were left home alone. Mother told the boys that they would be able to get pizza for dinner if they cleaned the bedroom they shared while the rest of the family was gone. N.B. became upset when A.F. refusedto clean their room. N.B. retrieved Mother and Step–Father's .22 caliber rifle from the master bedroom and again instructed A.F. to clean their bedroom. When A.F. again refused, N.B. pulled the trigger, shooting A.F. between the eyes.
After shooting A.F., N.B. returned the rifle to the master bedroom and called 911. N.B. told the 911 dispatcher that his brother had shot himself in the head. A.F. later died as a result of the gunshot wound to the head.
Morgan County Sheriff's Detective Dan Downing spoke with N.B. briefly after arriving at N.B.'s home. During this conversation, N.B. again indicated that A.F. had shot himself. In light of N.B.'s emotional state, N.B. was taken to Susie's Place, an independent, child-friendly advocacy center in Hendricks County, to be more fully interviewed in a less traumatic location. During this interview, N.B. again stated that A.F. had shot himself.
During their investigation, police officers recovered a .22 caliber rifle from inside the master bedroom. The rifle was in good working order, the safety was off, and there was a casing inside the gun. The officers also found two boxes of .22 caliber cartridges lying on a dresser in the master bedroom and a spent .22 caliber casing on the floor. The casing was fired from the rifle. The officers also discovered a latent print of N.B.'s left ring finger on the magazine, as well as prints of N.B.'s right thumb and right middle finger on the box of cartridges.
An autopsy was conducted on A.F. the following morning, after which it was determined that it would have been physically impossible for the fatal gunshot wound to have been self-inflicted with the rifle in question. After reviewing the autopsy results, Detective Downing contacted Mother, told her that there were discrepancies in N.B.'s statement that needed to be cleared up, and requested permission to re-interview N.B. Mother took Detective Downing's request to mean that he did not believe that N.B. had been truthful in his earlier statement. Mother agreed to allow N.B. to talk to Detective Downing. Later that afternoon, N.B. arrived at the sheriff's department with his maternal grandmother (“Grandmother”) and was met by Mother and Step–Father. Mother, Step–Father, Grandmother, and, at the family's request, a chaplain were present during Detective Downing's interview with N.B.
After N.B. and his family arrived at the sheriff's department, Detective Downing again indicated that he wished to discuss certain discrepancies in N.B.'s prior statement and the autopsy results with N.B. Detective Downing gave Mother and N.B. papers setting forth N.B.'s rights. After ascertaining that N.B. could read, Detective Downing instructed Mother and N.B. to read the papers and inquired as to whether each understood N.B.'s constitutional rights. Both responded in the affirmative and signed the acknowledgment and waiver forms.
Detective Downing then informed the family that he was going to leave the room and turn off all recording devices to provide the family with an opportunity to discuss amongst themselves whether they believed that N.B. should answer his questions. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, Detective Downing returned to the room and asked N.B., State's Ex. 69A, p. 2. N.B. responded by telling Detective Downing that he had shot A.F. N.B.'s family demonstrated love and concern for N.B. At no time did Mother, or any other family member, indicate that they did not want N.B. to speak to Detective Downing.
On July 1, 2011, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that N.B. had engagedin conduct that would constitute murder and Class C felony reckless homicide if committed by an adult. On August 10, 2011, N.B. filed a “motion to quash” his July 1, 2011 statement to Detective Downing. The juvenile court conducted a suppression hearing on N.B.'s motion on August 23, 2011. The juvenile court denied N.B.'s motion on August 24, 2011.
The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing on September 6–7, 2011. On September 9, 2011, the juvenile court issued an order adjudicating N.B. delinquent for committing what would be Class C reckless homicide if committed by an adult. The juvenile court determined that the State had failed to prove that N.B. committed what would be murder if committed by an adult. At the dispositional hearing, which was conducted on November 14, 2011, the juvenile court ordered that N.B. be placed in the Children's Bureau Program. This appeal follows.
N.B. contends that the juvenile court erred in admitting his statement to Detective Downing because the procedural safeguards for the waiver of a juvenile's constitutional rights, as required by Indiana Code section 31–32–5–1(2010) (the “juvenile waiver statute”), were not followed. Specifically, N.B. claims that Mother was not an appropriate custodian to join in the waiver of his rights because she had an adverse interest to N.B. and that his waiver was not knowing or voluntary because he executed the written waiver before being afforded an opportunity for meaningful consultation with Mother. For its part, the State argues that the juvenile court properly admitted N.B.'s statement because N.B. was not in custody at the time he spoke to Detective Downing, and, alternatively, because the procedural safeguards set forth by the juvenile waiver statute were met.
As a general rule, when a juvenile who is not in custody gives a statement to police, neither the safeguards of a Miranda2 warning nor the juvenile waiver statute is implicated. A.A. v. State, 706 N.E.2d 259, 261 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). Thus, the threshold issue is whether N.B. was subject to a custodial interrogation when he gave his statement. Id. “For an interrogation to be custodial in nature, one does not necessarily have to be under arrest.” Id. “To be custodial in the non-arrest context, the interrogation must commence after the person's freedom of action has been deprived in any significant way.” Id. This is determined by examining whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would believe he is not free to leave. S.D. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 425, 430 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).
The parties do not discuss whether N.B. was interrogated. “The term ‘interrogation’ has been defined as a process of questioning by law enforcement officials which lends itself to obtaining incriminating statements.” A.A., 706 N.E.2d at 261 (citing Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789, 796 (Ind.1993)). The record shows that Detective Downing requested permission for N.B. to appear at the sheriff's department to clarify certain discrepancies in his prior statement which came to light following the autopsy of A.F. The line of questioning posed by Detective Downing elicited an incriminating response from N.B., i.e., that N.B. had shot A.F. Thus, we conclude that N.B. was interrogated by Detective Downing.
Here, the trial court found that N.B. was in custody at the time he was interviewed by Detective Downing. The parties dispute this finding with N.B. arguing that the trial court properly found that N.B. was in custody and the State arguing that N.B. was not in custody when he was interviewed by Detective Downing. However, we need not determine whether N.B. was in custody because, as will be discussed below, we conclude that the procedural safeguards set forth in the juvenile waiver statute were met.
We next consider whether the procedural safeguards for the waiver of a juvenile's constitutional rights, as required by the juvenile waiver statute, were followed. Indiana Code section 31–32–5–1 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Any rights guaranteed to a child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only:
* * *
(2) by the child's custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if:
(A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right;
(B) that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell v. State
...and Article 1, Section 14 and finding that express oral or written statement is not required to establish waiver of rights); N.B., 971 N.E.2d at 1256 (assessing juvenile's rights were validly waived under Indiana statute and finding juvenile impliedly waived his rights). We decline to impos......
- N.B. v. State