State v. Arbeiter
| Decision Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51334,No. 1,51334,1 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 26 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph Franz ARBEITER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Ben Ely, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
James P. Finnegan, Jr., John H. Haley, Jr., John E. Bardgett, James T. Williamson, St. Louis, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Joseph Franz Arbeiter appeals from a sentence of life imprisonment upon conviction by a jury of murder in the first degree.
On the afternoon of December 2, 1963, Mrs. Nancy Zanone was stabbed by an intruder in her apartment at 4964 Chippewa Avenue in St. Louis. She died the following day without being able to describe her assailant.
Joseph Arbeiter, then fifteen years of age, resided with his mother at 4327a Morganford Road, in the neighborhood of the Zanone residence. Joseph had had several encounters with the St. Louis Police Department and officers acquainted with him considered him a daytime residence burglar.
Captain John Walsh of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Homicide Division, was in charge of the investigation of the death of Mrs. Zanone. On the morning of her death, the night sergeant called Captain Walsh's attention to an attempted purse snatching and stabbing of Grace Munyon on November 28, 1963, in the area of Kingshighway and Chippewa, and near the Zanone residence. The sergeant suggested a similarity between the two attacks and at around 10:00 A.M. Captain Walsh called Sergeant Feldmeier of the First Police Department District and inquired whether or not 'he had anyone in mind' in the Munyon case. Sergeant Feldmeier stated that he was looking for Arbeiter and when the captain stated that his theory was that Mrs. Zanone had encountered a prowler in her home, Sergeant Feldmeier stated that Arbeiter 'had a past history of this type of behavior.' The officers agreed that efforts to locate Arbeiter should continue.
According to Sergeant Feldmeier, he, prior to the telephone conversation with Captain Walsh, had directed Detective Corporal Stocker to 'investigate' Arbeiter in connection with a series of residence burglaries in the vicinity of Kingshighway and Chippewa. At the time he gave that direction, he had neither the Zanone nor the Munyon case in mind. Corporal Stocker checked with the authorities at the school Arbeiter was supposed to attend and found that he had not attended regularly for some two weeks. Corporal Stocker reported this to Sergeant Feldmeier who told the corporal to keep looking for Joe. Corporal Stocker got in touch with Joe's mother at her place of employment. She was surprised that Joe was not in school and Corporal Stocker asked her to have Joe remain at home that evening and he'd come by and talk to him.
Corporal Stocker continued to search the neighborhood for Joe and at around noon saw him walking along the street, stopped his police car and Joe got in without any question. Corporal Stocker took Joe to the First District Police Station. There Joe was taken to the detectives' room where he was interrogated by Sergeant Feldmeier, Corporal Stocker and Officer Kraeger.
Despite Captain Walsh's testimony that his prior conversation with Sergeant Feldmeier cast Joe in the role of a suspect in the Zanone and Munyon cases, both Feldmeier and Stocker testified that they were looking for Joe primarily in connection with house burglaries and that they first questioned about several such incidents, all of which Joe denied. They then questioned Joe about his activity on preceding evenings and found that he had been at the Avalon Theatre on the night of the Munyon incident. Sergeant Feldmeier asked Joe whether or not he committed that offense and he readily admitted it.
The officers then began to question Joe about his being in the vicinity of the Zanone residence at the time of her stabbing. Although they had no such witness, they told Joe that a witness had placed him in the neighborhood of the Zanone residence. According to the officers, Joe was reluctant luctant to discuss this matter, but he finally inquired whether or not he could go home if he told the truth. Corporal Stocker told him:
After some further reluctance, Joe said:
Captain Walsh was called and told of Joe's statement. He directed the First District officers to take Joe to his residence and to get in touch with Joe's mother and have her come to the house. Officers Feldmeier and Stocker took Joe to his home and Officers Haley and Kraeger went to Mrs. Arbeiter's place of employment and got her.
Sometime after 1:30, Joe, in the custody of Feldmeier and Stocker, arrived at the Arbeiter residence and Captain Walsh and two other detectives also arrived. Mrs. Arbeiter was brought to the residence and she and Joe, accompanied by some six or seven police officers, entered the flat.
They went into the living room and Mrs. Arbeiter asked what Joe had done. A police officer told Joe to tell her and Joe said: 'I stabbed that woman on Chippewa.' Mrs. Arbeiter said: 'You don't mean that woman that was killed in her home up there.' This remark was the first knowledge that Joe had that Mrs. Zanone had died.
The police officers asked Joe about the clothing he was wearing at the time of the stabbing. He showed them the jacket which he was wearing and the police officers took it. Joe was asked about the knife which he had used. He said it was in the garage. A knife was found there, but the police were skeptical about its being the weapon used. Upon further interrogation, Joe stated that he had buried the weapon he had used in a schoolyard. He accompanied the officers to the schoolyard and the knife was discovered.
At approximately four o'clock, Joe was taken to the Homicide Unit Office in police headquarters and Sergeant Kilroy, a police department juvenile officer, was called in, together with an assistant circuit attorney. The assistant circuit attorney questioned Joe briefly and then took a statement in question and answer form which was recorded by a stenographer and subsequently transcribed. Sometime later in the evening, Joe was turned over to the custody of juvenile authorities. A petition was filed in the juvenile court, alleging that Joe was within the applicable provisions of § 211.031 by reason of having violated a state law. The juvenile court, after investigation and a hearing, ordered that he might be prosecuted under the general laws. A grand jury subsequently indicted him for murder in the first degree.
In the trial court, the defendant objected to the introduction of evidence relating to his statements while in the custody of the police officers and to physical evidence acquired by the officers as a result of such statements. The trial court overruled his objections and on this appeal the action of the trial court is attacked as erroneous. Defendant's contention is 'that defendant was not, prior to making such statements, * * * advised of his rights to remain silent, to legal advice, or advice from a competent adult, and was not furnished such advice and, therefore, such statements were not voluntary and such evidence was obtained in violation of defendant's rights under the Juvenile Code of Missouri and under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.'
It is conceded that the police officers who dealt with the defendant were aware that he was fifteen years of age and therefore subject to the Juvenile Code and that the defendant was not turned over to juvenile authorities until after the statements had been made; that he was not advised of his right to remain silent or to consult a lawyer or an adult; that his only opportunity to consult with his mother arose from her presence at the home in the company of the police officers; that the only warning or advice which he received was from the assistant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Interest of ADR
...to being taken to the juvenile authorities." State v. Moore, 580 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Mo. banc 1979). To the same effect is State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo.1966), where the court dealt with admissibility of statements obtained from a juvenile by police interrogation in disregard of the juv......
-
D.E.G. v. Juvenile Officer of Jackson Cnty.
...well as the State's interests in protecting citizens from crime while protecting the best interests of the juvenile. See State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Mo. 1966) (citing State v. Shaw , 93 Ariz. 40, 378 P.2d 487 (Ariz. banc 1963) ).4 I also concur with Judge Fischer's dissenting opin......
-
Juvenile Officer v. J.L.H. (In re Interest of J.L.H.)
...from federal constitutional principles, even when the code and the constitution address the same issues. Thus, in State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo.1966), the Missouri Supreme Court considered whether a juvenile's rights had been violated when the juvenile was interrogated for an extende......
-
K. W. B., In Interest of, KCD
...body) is best proceeded against on a rehabilitative basis under special procedures for the benefit of the child.' State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26, 30(3) (Mo.1966). The interest of the State, as parens patriae, in the welfare of its children was most recently reaffirmed legislatively by the......
-
Section 29 Admissionsor
ConfessionsofJuvenile
...police to observe this rule mandates that any statement made by the juvenile as a result be excluded from evidence. State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. 1966); Hamby v. State, 454 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. banc The court’s ruling on the admissibility of any in-custody statements or admissions made b......
-
Section 11.29 Statements of Juveniles
...and discipline of the children who come within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Section 211.011, RSMo 2000. In State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26, 30–31 (Mo. 1966), when the juvenile was interrogated in violation of § 211.061, the statements implicating him in a homicide were inadmissible i......
-
§1.24 Pre-interrogation Procedures
...addresses a juvenile’s rights during custodial interrogations.” Id. at 691. Applying the same rationale adopted in State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. 1966), State v. Wade, 531 S.W.2d 726 (Mo. banc 1976), and In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. banc 2008), the court reversed the juvenile co......
-
Section 24 Pre‑Interrogation
Procedures
...has the opportunity to observe the child before questioning and fulfills a protective function for the child, see State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. 1966), the officer must often testify in court regarding the issues discussed in A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575. Therefore, it behooves the juvenil......