Penn, Matter of
| Decision Date | 06 February 1978 |
| Citation | 92 Misc.2d 1043,402 N.Y.S.2d 155 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Leon PENN, a person alleged to be a juvenile delinquent, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Family Court |
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, respondent, age 14, is charged with acts which if committed by an adult would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. On January 31, 1978, a hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of a stateme made by respondent on the day of his arrest (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179).
On the day in question, respondent was apprehended by the police and taken to the Persons Unit of the Rochester Police Department, a facility designated by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, as a suitable place for the questioning of children. Respondent was placed in a room with Detective Joseph Fornataro who knew respondent, knew that his mother lived in Rochester and had no telephone and also knew that respondent resided in a group home operated by the New York State Division for Youth pursuant to a court-ordered placement. Detective Fornataro telephoned the director of the group home who sent down Donald Burke, a Youth Service Team worker for the Division for Youth who had been assigned to work with respondent seven days earlier. When Burke arrived, respondent was advised of his Constitutional rights, said that he understood them and agreed to give up his rights and talk with the detective. He was then questioned by the detective and a typewritten statement was prepared. Both respondent and Burke signed a "rights card" and the typewritten statement.
The duties of a peace officer after taking a juvenile into custody are set forth in Family Court Act Section 724. Section 724(a) requires the officer to immediately notify the parent or other person legally responsible for the child's care or the person with whom he is domiciled. In view of the court order placing respondent with the Division for Youth, the Division was clearly responsible for respondent's care. The court finds that Detective Fornataro acted appropriately and in strict compliance with the statute in notifying the director of the Division for Youth group home.
Questioning of a child for a reasonable period of time is authorized by Family Court Act Section 724(b)(ii). Although the statute contains no express requirement that the child's parent be present, the appellate courts have considered this issue. In Matter of Gregory W., 19 N.Y.2d 55, 277 N.Y.S.2d 675, 224 N.E.2d 102, the Court of Appeals held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
...rule appears again in Matter of Hector G., 89 Misc.2d 1081, 393 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1977), its reign is short-lived. In Matter of Penn, 92 Misc.2d 1043, 402 N.Y.S.2d 155 (1978), the Court declares that proper safeguarding of the child's privilege against self-incrimination suggests that a child s......
-
Stanley C., Matter of
...923). The presence of DFY worker George Allen during this questioning does not satisfy these due process requirements (Matter of Penn, 92 Misc.2d 1043, 402 N.Y.S.2d 155; cf. Matter of Brian P.T., 58 A.D.2d 868, 396 N.Y.S.2d Because "special considerations of care" were lacking in the interr......
-
Com. v. A Juvenile (No. 1)
...in Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1047, 99 S.Ct. 722, 58 L.Ed.2d 706 (1978); Matter of Penn, 92 Misc.2d 1043, 402 N.Y.S.2d 155 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1978); J.T.P. v. State, 544 P.2d 1270 (Okl.Cr.App.1975); Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492, 372 A.2d 797 (1977); Colo.Re......
-
Stanley C., Matter of
...was questioned while in the custody of officials of the facility to which he had been committed by court order (see Matter of Penn, 92 Misc.2d 1043, 1044, 402 N.Y.S.2d 155). DFY officials, the persons legally responsible for respondent's care, were aware of the questioning and were present ......