Spencer, In re

• Decision Date: 31 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 41711,41711
• Citation: Spencer, In re, 179 N.W.2d 95, 288 Minn. 119 (Minn. 1970)
• Parties: In re Welfare of Wayne Edward SPENCER, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 95

179 N.W.2d 95

288 Minn. 119

In re Welfare of Wayne Edward SPENCER, Appellant.

No. 41711.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 31, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Assuming, without deciding, that a juvenile subsequently adjudicated a delinquent was constitutionally entitled to the presence of counsel at a police lineup at which he was identified as a participant in an offense, there is nevertheless clear and convincing evidence that a subsequent incourt identification of the juvenile was not an exploitation of the assumed illegality and that it was therefore independently admissible. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149.

2. It is not mandatory in a juvenile court proceeding that a separate pretrial hearing be conducted to consider an application to suppress evidence on constitutional grounds. State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 141 N.W.2d 3.

Smith, Marino & Becker and George C. Stoll, Minneapolis, for appellant.

George Scott, County Atty., Michael Gallagher and Susanne Sedgwick, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, Douglas Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

OPINION

PETERSON, Justice.

Wayne Edward Spencer, a 15-year-old juvenile (hereafter defendant), was adjudicated a delinquent child in Hennepin County Juvenile Court, the Honorable Lindsay G. Arthur, Judge. He appeals from that order of adjudication.

The delinquent act was the taking of unconsented, indecent liberties upon the female victim, a 19-year-old unmarried minor. See, Minn.St. 609.296. In the late evening hours of July 11, 1968, and the early hours of the next day, a party was in progress at a house in south Minneapolis, attended by some 15 persons, including the young defendant. The victim had come to the house to stay overnight with a girl friend who resided there. They were not participants in the party and, because the atmosphere was threatening, they left the premises, returning in the early daylight hours of the morning only to retrieve the victim's luggage. On their attempted departure the second time, Billy Bradford and another young man forcibly prevented their exit. Bradford beat the victim, bruising her and breaking her nose, after which she was half-dragged, half-led, to an upstairs bedroom. There she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Bradford and six other young males, including the defendant.

Defendant and other participants were arrested later that morning, and defendant was placed in a police lineup with seven or eight other youths. His parents were not present, and he was not represented by counsel. The victim readily identified defendant at the lineup as one of the participants in the offense. She later identified defendant again at the proceedings in juvenile court.

The basic contention of defendant is that, as an accused in a juvenile delinquency proceeding which may lead to commitment in a state institution, he is entitled to all the constitutional protections of an adult accused of crime, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, including the presence of counsel at the confrontation of a police lineup, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. He argues from that premise: (1) The subsequent in-court identification by the victim should have been suppressed for failure of the state to establish by clear and convincing evidence that such identification was not induced by or dependent upon the tainted lineup identification; and (2) a separate pretrial hearing for consideration of a claim to suppress evidence on constitutional grounds, State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 141 N.W.2d is required in such juvenile court proceedings.

1. We do not determine the validity of defendant's basic constitutional premise ¹ because the specific issues raised are determinable without resort to that premise. We agree with Judge Arthur that, regardless of the argued infirmity of the police lineup, the subsequent in-court identification was not an exploitation of such assumed illegality and that it was therefore independently admissible. The test for such admissibility, as stated in Wade (388 U.S. 241, 87 S.Ct. 1940, 18 L.Ed.2d 1165)--

'* * * requires consideration of various factors; for example, the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant's actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification.'

There was, we hold, clear and convincing evidence to support Judge Arthur's finding that the in-court identification was based upon observations of the defendant other than the lineup identification. The victim had substantial prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act at close range and under adequate conditions of light. There was no discrepancy at any time in her identifications of the defendant. She had not been shown a picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, so that her identification was free from any power of such suggestion. There was no significant lapse of time between the charged act of delinquency and the lineup...