State in Interest of Hampton, In re

• Decision Date: 31 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 8698,8698
• Citation: 257 So.2d 459
• Parties: In re STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of Darryl Wayne HAMPTON.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 459

257 So.2d 459

In re STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of Darryl Wayne HAMPTON.

No. 8698.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1972.

Dudley Spiller, Baton Rouge, for appellant .

Don G. Boudreaux, Probation Officer, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge:

Darryl Wayne Hampton, born August 27, 1955, was found to be delinquent for having committed simple burglary of a cafe and was ordered committed to the Louisiana Department of Corrections. From that judgment, he has appealed to this court.

The petition alleges Wayne's delinquency in a number of respects, but the finding of delinquency was based on only one of the charges. He was specifically found not to be delinquent under all other charges set forth in the petition, including an alleged violation of R.S. 14:68. The charge under which he was found delinquent reads as follows:

'1. That Darryl Wayne Hampton age 16 address 935 North Blvd., Baton Rouge, La., whose parents are Harris Hampton (Dec.) and Katherine Anthony is delinquent and within the jurisdiction of The Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, in that on or about the 9th day of March, 1971, said juvenile violated R.S. 14:62 and 14:68, in that he participated in the burglary of Felder's Cafe, 16660 Florida Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana and participated in the theft of 55 1/2 pints of assorted liquor, 44 pints of assorted liquor, 18 fifth of assorted liquor and 1 quart of assorted liquor.'

A motion to suppress evidence on the ground that it was unlawfully obtained was filed on behalf of the juvenile. The motion was heard at the delinquency hearing, but was not specifically ruled on by the trial court. We do not find it necessary to rule on the motion, because the evidence sought to be suppressed was never offered in evidence at the hearing.

In consideraing this appeal, we must be guided by the following principles, which are now well established in our law.

First, a juvenile is entitled to the protection of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and to the safeguards thereby guaranteed to those accused of crime. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).

In the Gault case, it was specifically held that a juvenile has the right to be notified of the charges against him, the right to counsel, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, and to cross examination, as well as the right to exercise the privilege against self incrimination.

Second, that the burden of proving the charges against a juvenile is no less severe than that of proving charges against an adult. Every element of the crime charged must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); In re Glassberg, 230 La. 396, 88 So.2d 707 (1956).

Third, that a juvenile may not be adjudged delinquent unless his guilt of the specific charges against him is shown in accordance with the foregoing principles. That is, a judge may not make a finding of delinquency based on...