People in Interest of J.C.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92SA350,92SA350
• Citation: 844 P.2d 1185
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, In the Interest of J.C., Juvenile-Appellee, and Concerning R.B., Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1185

844 P.2d 1185

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant In the Interest of J.C., Juvenile-Appellee and Concerning R.B., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92SA350.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Feb. 8, 1993.

Alexander M. Hunter, Dist. Atty., Twentieth Judicial Dist., William F. Nagel, Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Steven Louth, Deputy Dist. Atty., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lindasue Smollen, Kevin C. Paul, Smollen & Rockwell, Boulder, for juvenile-appellee.

Justice MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In the present case, a police officer made an investigatory telephone call to a juvenile suspect in a robbery. Holding that such a call constituted an illegal custodial interrogation, the district court suppressed all incriminating statements made by the juvenile during the call in his subsequent juvenile delinquency proceeding for theft. The People challenge the district court's suppression in this interlocutory appeal, brought pursuant to section 19-1-109, 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), section 16-12-102(2), 8A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), and C.A.R. 4.1. Because we find that a telephone call is not a custodial situation, even when involving a juvenile, we reverse the ruling of the district court.

I.

In March 1992, a bicycle was reported as stolen to the Boulder Police Department. As part of his investigation of the theft, Detective Fred Patterson contacted by telephone several juveniles he suspected may have been involved, including the one involved in this case, J.C. With each juvenile, the telephone contact was made without the presence of a parent, guardian or other responsible adult.

After questioning J.C. over the phone, Detective Patterson contacted him at home. In the presence of his mother and older brother, J.C. refused to speak further with the officer. J.C. was then taken into custody and charged with theft and conspiracy to commit theft in a juvenile proceeding.

J.C. moved to have his telephone statements suppressed as being in violation of section 19-2-210 of the Colorado Children's Code. The statute provides in part as follows:

No statements or admissions of a juvenile made as a result of the custodial interrogation of such juvenile by a law enforcement official concerning delinquent acts alleged to have been committed by the juvenile shall be admissible in evidence against such juvenile unless a parent, guardian, or legal or physical custodian of the juvenile was present at such interrogation and the juvenile and his parent, guardian, or legal or physical custodian were advised of the juvenile's right to remain silent and that any statements made may be used against him in a court of law, of his right to the presence of an attorney during such interrogation, and of his right to have counsel appointed if he so requests at the time of the interrogation; except that, if a public defender or counsel representing the juvenile is present at such interrogation, such statements or admissions may be admissible in evidence even though the juvenile's parent, guardian, or legal or physical custodian was not present.

§ 19-2-210(1), 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). J.C. asserted that the statements were made outside the presence of any responsible adult, ¹ and therefore were inadmissible under the statute.

Confessing to some confusion as to the application of the statute, the district court requested that the attorneys for each side submit briefs on the specific issue of "Whether or not section 19-2-210 applies to non-custodial situations." On June 12, 1992, the district court granted J.C.'s motion to suppress on the basis that the telephone call constituted custodial interrogation, which was illegal since the requirement that a responsible adult be present was not met. The People moved for reconsideration of the court's order on July 14, 1992, arguing that the motion to suppress was granted on different grounds than briefed. Reiterating and expanding upon its prior reasoning, the district court denied the motion on August 17, 1992. The People then filed an interlocutory appeal before this court on August 26, 1992.

The resolution of this case depends on the boundaries of the definition of custodial interrogation as applied to juveniles, which have not yet been set forth either by this court or by the United States Supreme Court. To resolve this issue, we will examine past custodial interrogation cases, both adult and juvenile. In doing so, we find that the age of the juvenile, standing alone, is not determinative to a finding of custody in every situation, as the district court and J.C. would seem to have us hold. Rather, the definition of custody in the context of adults--that there is a significant deprivation of one's freedom of action--is still applicable to the analysis. Since we do not find such constraints to exist here, we reverse the ruling of the district court.

II.

Before analyzing the definition of custody in the context of juvenile proceedings, however, we must first address a threshold issue of jurisdiction. J.C. contends that the interlocutory appeal was not timely filed by the People, and as a result this court has no jurisdiction over the appeal and it should be dismissed. See People v. Donahue, 750 P.2d 921, 922 (Colo.1988) ("Failure to file a timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect"); Clasby v. Klapper, 636 P.2d 682, 684 (Colo.1981) (same). Whether or not jurisdiction is proper will be determined by examining the relevant statutes and the time limitations imposed therein.

Section 16-12-102(2), 8A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.) provides in part that:

The prosecution may file an interlocutory appeal in the supreme court from a ruling of the trial court ... granting a motion to suppress an extrajudicial confession or admission if the prosecution certifies to the judge who granted such motion and to the supreme court that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and the evidence is a substantial part of the proof of the charge pending against the defendant.

The time limit for such an appeal to be taken is set forth in C.A.R. 4.1(b), which states in part: "No interlocutory appeal shall be filed after ten days from the entry of the order complained of."

J.C. argues that the appeal should have been filed after the suppression ruling itself, rather than after the ruling on the People's motion to reconsider. Therefore, he contends, the filing was too late for consideration by this court. He also asserts that the motion to reconsider was used by the People purely as a device by which to extend the time under which they may bring an interlocutory appeal. If true, such an attempt to circumvent the appeals process would be impermissible. See Donahue, 750 P.2d at 922-23 (court disapproved of prosecution tactic of voluntarily dismissing charges in effort to avoid effect of untimely interlocutory appeal).

In examining the facts of the situation, however, we find that there were significant grounds for bringing a motion to reconsider and that it was not merely a prosecutorial fiction. The trial court clearly set forth the following issue which was briefed before the suppression ruling was made and on which the ruling supposedly was to be based: "Whether or not section 19-2-210 applies to non-custodial situations." The question implicitly assumed that the telephone call was a non-custodial situation. It was this issue that was briefed by the People.

It was not this issue, however, on which the trial court based its decision to suppress the statements. Instead, the court found that the telephone call constituted custody, thereby invoking the protections of section 19-2-210. The question of whether the telephone call could be considered custody had not been addressed by the People, since it was outside the scope of the initial issue. In the motion to reconsider, the People then included a comprehensive discussion of the law of custody.

The law allows a trial court to reconsider suppression orders. We have stated that, "It would make little sense to hold that if a [trial] judge ... perceived that a palpable error had been committed in the resolution of a pretrial motion, he nonetheless could take no measures to correct it." People v. Lewis, 659 P.2d 676, 680 (Colo.1983); see also People v. Weller, 679 P.2d 1077, 1080-81 (Colo.1984). Thus, "A pre-trial ruling on a motion to suppress does not necessarily bind the trial judge and under certain circumstances ... the trial court has a duty to reconsider de novo the issue of suppression." Gibbons v. People, 167 Colo. 83, 86, 445 P.2d 408, 409 (1968). If a judge may reconsider an earlier ruling, it is only logical and equitable that his or her modified ruling may be appealed subject to the time limitations of C.A.R. 4.1. Since the appeal was brought within ten days of the modified ruling, we therefore find jurisdiction to hear this case.

III.

Having found jurisdiction, we now turn our attention to the question of custody as it involves juveniles. We begin our analysis by examining the statutory language of section 19-2-210, which has been set forth above.

A.

This statute, by its plain language, seeks to exclude statements or admissions made only as a result of custodial interrogation without the presence of a responsible adult. Clearly, it does not apply to non-custodial situations. This premise is supported by the history of the statute. The predecessor to the current version of section 19-2-210 provided that statements or admissions made as a result of interrogation, which was not specified as necessarily being custodial, were not admissible if a responsible adult was not present. ² § 19-2-102(3)(c)(I), 8B C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.) (repealed 1987). This provision was uniformly interpreted as applying only when the juvenile was in temporary custody or under detention, as those terms are defined in the Children's Code. ³ See, e.g., People in Interest of G.L., 631 P.2d 1118, 1120 (Colo.1981); People v. L.A., 199 Colo. 390, 392, ...