People v. McAnally, 27189
| Decision Date | 12 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 27189,27189 |
| Citation | 192 Colo. 12,554 P.2d 1100 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Drew McANALLY, and Patrick Ralph Brown, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Nolan L. Brown, Dist. Atty., Lynne M. Hufnagel, T. W. Norman, Deputy Dist. Attys., Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.
Nichols & Shinn, George J. Nichols III, Lakewood, for defendant-appellee Timothy Drew McAnally.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Arthur S. Nieto, Deputy State Public Defender, Golden, for defendant-appellee Patrick Ralph Brown.
The people bring this interlocutory appeal, pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1, from an order of the Jefferson County District Court suppressing defendants' incriminating oral statements. We affirm the order of suppression.
Defendants Timothy Drew McAnally and Patrick Ralph Brown were both under eighteen years of age at all times material to this appeal. Each had previously been adjudicated a delinquent and both were committed to the Department of Institutions having been confined at the Lookout Mountain School for Boys. They left this institution without permission on November 6, 1973, and allegedly committed criminal offenses while absent. Defendant Brown was apprehended by officers of the Lakewood Department of Public Safety on November 14, 1975, questioned, and returned to Lookout Mountain. Defendant McAnally was later apprehended by the same department on December 1, 1975, and returned to Lookout Mountain.
Lakewood officers subsequently questioned both defendants at the boys' school about offenses committed during their absence from the institution. Present at the interviews were two police officers and a counselor employed by Lookout Mountain. Each interrogation resulted in incriminating statements.
Thereafter, petitions in delinquency were filed against each defendant. After a transfer hearing, the court ordered that defendants be tried as adults. The district attorney then filed an information against defendants, charging felonious joyriding, second-degree burglary and aggravated robbery.
Defendants moved to suppress the statements implicating them in the crimes charged. After hearing, the district court granted defendants' motions. The People appeal the district court's ruling.
Our disposition of this appeal hinges on section 19--2--102(3)(c)(I), C.R.S.1973, which provides:
'No statements or admissions of a child made as a result of interrogation of the child by a law enforcement official concerning acts alleged to have been committed by the child which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult shall be admissible in evidence against that child Unless a parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child was present at such interrogation and the child and his parent, guardian, or legal custodian were advised of the child's right to remain silent, that any statements made may be used against him in a court of law, the right of the presence of an attorney during such interrogation, and the right to have counsel appointed if so requested at the time of the interrogation; except that, if a public defender or counsel representing the child is present at such interrogation, such statements or admissions may be admissible in evidence even though the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian was not present.' (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that defendant Brown's statement of November 14, 1975, was properly suppressed. The People concede that no parent, guardian or legal custodian attended this interrogation. We find no merit in the People's suggestion that defendant's later transfer to adult court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholas v. People, 97SC705
...the end that any statements made by the child be given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.") (quoting People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 15, 554 P.2d 1100, 1102-03 (1976)); People in the Interest of G.L., 631 P.2d 1118, 1120 (Colo.1981) ("The purpose of [the] section ... is to provide......
-
People v. Saiz
...... will be fully afforded to him." People v. Maes, 194 Colo. 235, 237, 571 P.2d 305, 306 (1977); see also People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to Miranda violations. United States v. Nash, 563 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1977); ......
-
People v. Legler
...Saiz, 620 P.2d 15, 19-20 (Colo.1980); see also People v. Maes, 194 Colo. 235, 237, 571 P.2d 305, 306 (1977); People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 15, 554 P.2d 1100, 1102-03 (1976); Catherine P. Richardson, Confessions and the Juvenile Offender, 11 Colo. Law. 96, 99 (1982). To this end, the leg......
-
People v. S.M.D., 93SA153
...of appeals in People in the Interest of L.B., 33 Colo.App. 1, 513 P.2d 1069 (1973), and approved by this court in People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976), 7 appropriately describes the type of relationship which our legislature, in adopting this language, thought worthy of Th......
-
ARTICLE 1
...custodian" does not encompass a state agency or employee thereof to which a delinquent child has been committed. People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). Care is preferably in child's own home. A neglected and dependent child's care and guidance should be preferably in his ow......
-
ARTICLE 2 THE COLORADO JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
...custodian" does not encompass a state agency or employee thereof to which a delinquent child has been committed. People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). "Order". Section 19-1-103 does not define "order" as that word is used in former subsection (6)(a) (now subsection (4)(a))......
-
ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
...custodian" does not encompass a state agency or employee thereof to which a delinquent child has been committed. People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). Care is preferably in child's own home. A neglected and dependent child's care and guidance should be preferably in his ow......
-
ARTICLE 2.5
...has been placed, is not a "legal custodian" for the purposes of former subsection (3)(c)(I) (now subsection (1)). People v. McAnally, 192 Colo. 12, 554 P.2d 1100 (1976). This section is to be strictly construed. People in Interest of M.M., 43 Colo. App. 65, 599 P.2d 968 (1979). Former subse......