State v. George Anthony W.

Citation488 S.E.2d 361,200 W.Va. 86
Decision Date13 December 1996
Docket Number23394,Nos. 23393,s. 23393
PartiesSTATE of West Virginia, Appellee, v. GEORGE ANTHONY W., An Infant Under the Age of 18 Years, and Joann W. O., Parent And/Or Custodian of Said Child, Respondents Below, George Anthony W., An Infant Under the Age of 18 Years, Appellant. STATE of West Virginia, Appellee, v. STEPHFON W., An Infant Under the Age of 18 Years, and Betty B., Parent and/or Custodian of Said Child, Respondents Below, Stephfon W., An Infant under the Age of 18 Years, Appellant.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

"Under W.Va.Code, 49-5-8(d), when a juvenile is taken into custody, he must immediately be taken before a referee, circuit judge, or magistrate. If there is a failure to do so, any confession obtained as a result of the delay will be invalid where it appears that the primary purpose of the delay was to obtain a confession from the juvenile." Syllabus point 3, State v. Ellsworth J.R., 175 W.Va. 64, 331 S.E.2d 503 (1985).

Rory L. Perry, II, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.

James Robert Amos, D. Conrad Gall, Fairmont, for Appellant George Anthony W.

Frances C. Whiteman, Fairmont, for Appellant Stephfon W.

ALBRIGHT, Justice:

The appellants in this proceeding, 1 George Anthony W. and Stephfon W., who are infants, claim that the Circuit Court of Marion County, acting as the Juvenile Court of that County, erred in transferring them to the adult jurisdiction of the court and in directing that they be tried as adults for the murder of Dortha Minor. They also claim that the court should have ruled on the admissibility of, and should have suppressed, certain confessions made by them and should have suppressed certain physical evidence obtained as the result of those confessions. After reviewing the issues presented and the record filed, we conclude that the appellants are correct in asserting that the confessions should be suppressed and that the transfer orders which are apparently based on the confessions should be set aside.

The record in this case shows that the stabbed, strangled, and beaten body of Dortha Minor was found in her home in Fairmont on November 23, 1992. Ms. Minor had previously given money to members of the appellants' family, and early in the investigation of the crime police officers questioned the appellant Stephfon W.'s mother, Y.B., and aunt, C.W. or C.B.W. or C.B. or C., about it. As a result of the questioning, the aunt, on November 25, 1992, notified the police that Stephfon W., who was then fifteen years old, might have been involved in the homicide. 2

Stephfon W. had previously been involved in criminal activity, had been adjudicated a delinquent, and had been placed on probation. He had violated the terms of his probation and had failed to appear at a juvenile probation revocation hearing scheduled for approximately 1:00 or 1:30 p.m. on November 25, 1992. As a consequence, a capias was issued for his arrest, and Stephfon was located at around 3:30 p.m.

The record does not show any connection between the issuance of the capias and the implication of Stephfon in the murder by his aunt.

However, shortly after the issuance of the capias, Stephfon was taken into custody and was taken to the Fairmont City Police Station rather than to a court or a juvenile detention center. There the city police informed Stephfon that they wanted to talk to him about the Minor murder. Police Chief Ted Offutt read Stephfon his Miranda rights and asked him if he knew anything about the murder. He denied any knowledge.

From the police station, Stephfon W. was taken before a judge of the Circuit Court of Marion County for a hearing on the probation revocation question. Upon arriving, a police officer informed the court and the prosecuting attorney that the police wanted to question Stephfon about the murder of Dortha Minor after the hearing. It does not appear that the attorney representing Stephfon in the probation revocation was informed or undertook to advise Stephfon with regard to the questioning or the murder. 3 It appears that his representation was limited to the probation revocation matter. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the court revoked Stephfon W.'s probation and sentenced him to one year at the Industrial Home for Youth at Salem.

Stephfon W. remained at the court for approximately one hour while paper work was being completed. Then, in violation of W.Va.Code § 49-5-16(a), he was escorted back to the city police station by Fairmont City Police officers. 4 At the station, he was placed in an interview room with his mother and aunt. Stephfon's grandmother, Betty B., was never invited into the room, even though she was his guardian and custodian. According to the testimony, she remained in the hallway outside the interrogation room. 5 A police officer spoke with Stephfon briefly, and Stephfon denied being involved in the murder of Dortha Minor. He was then left alone with his mother and aunt, who, as previously indicated, had been suspects in the crime. He was allowed to speak privately with them, and shortly thereafter he informed the police officers that he wished to make a statement. 6 Miranda rights were recited to Stephfon, and he made a tape-recorded statement suggesting that George W. had committed the crime in his presence. The statement was concluded at 6:06 p.m.

At 6:30 p.m., after the oral statement was concluded, Stephfon W. and his mother, who was not his legal guardian, executed a "Juvenile Rights and Waiver" form, and shortly thereafter Stephfon W. signed a written transcription of his taped statement. 7

At around 8:20 p.m., the police, with the assistance of George W.'s mother and his "stepfather", located George at a friend's house. 8 He and his stepfather were then taken to the police station in a police vehicle. His mother followed in her vehicle.

There is no evidence that George was notified that he was not under arrest or free to leave when he arrived at the police station. To the contrary, a Detective Retton indicated that George was not free to leave. Detective Retton's testimony on this point proceeded as follows:

Q: Now, at the--was George free to leave at 8:20 when this questioning was started?

A: When it started?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: I--that wouldn't have been my decision. I don't know--I don't believe he would have been able to leave.

Q: Do you know if he would have been able to leave at the conclusion of the interview at 9:05?

A: At the conclusion, I don't believe he would have been allowed to leave.

At the police station, George was given his Miranda rights, and he signed a "Juvenile Rights and Waiver" form. 9 His mother did not sign the portion of the form indicating recognition of the right of George to be taken before a juvenile referee or circuit judge. She did sign the addendum indicating that she was willing to have George talk to police officers. George also agreed to give a taped statement.

When the taping began, Police Chief Offutt again recited Miranda rights to George. In the statement, George suggested that Stephfon W. had murdered Dortha Minor and that he had assisted. George also agreed to take the police to search for physical evidence.

Shortly after George gave his statement, a Detective Retton was directed to remain with Stephfon W. No attempt was made to arrange a detention hearing for him. A Detective Cain, who was involved in the investigation, explained:

[I] didn't think there would be a need to call a Magistrate at that point. It was after hours. It was Thanksgiving eve. We would need a Magistrate, a Prosecutor, a defense attorney, the Department of Human Services. That takes an hour or so to set up. I saw no need to do it. Why not do it when we were all ready, and when we were ready is when I called.

Detective Cain further explained that if a magistrate had been called, "the Magistrate wants the juvenile forthwith. I'm not going to call them and say I'm ready to come when I'm not ready to come."

After George gave his statement, the questioning of Stephfon proceeded, and Stephfon was informed of the differences between his statement and that of George. At length, Stephfon admitted that he stabbed Dortha Minor a couple of times and agreed to give an amended statement.

At 9:36 p.m., Stephfon gave a second statement, which suggested that he was more involved in the murder than was indicated by his first statement. He also suggested where physical evidence involved in the crime might be located.

After obtaining this statement, the police, accompanied by George, his mother and stepfather, conducted a search for the physical evidence. The search was unsuccessful, and the police asked George and his family for permission to search an automobile and their home. The permission was granted, and the search revealed articles of clothing which the police believed were connected to the crime.

With the hope of locating other physical evidence, two other officers took Stephfon W. and his mother on a further search. This search was conducted with Stephfon's consent and produced a cooking pot and a knife mentioned in the confessions.

At around 10:00 p.m. on this same day, November 25, 1992, George W. was taken to a magistrate court for a detention hearing. Upon arrival, Stephfon W. was already there.

A preliminary hearing was held on December 4, 1992. The State presented evidence to establish probable cause, including the juveniles' confessions and the testimony of officers who were involved in the investigation. Although counsel for Stephfon W. and George W. did not offer evidence, they did cross-examine the State's witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Merrifield, upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, found probable cause to believe that Stephfon W. and George W. had participated in the death of the decedent. He ordered that they be held without bond, pending...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Newcomb
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 23, 2009
    ...argues that the knife should have been excluded pursuant to the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine. See State v. George Anthony W., 200 W.Va. 86, 488 S.E.2d 361 (1996).6 In response, the State argues that the appellant was not actually questioned about the location of the knife. Rather, ......
  • Matter of Steven William T.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1997
    ...conflict of interest between the juvenile and the adult present with him during questioning also existed in State v. George Anthony W., 200 W.Va. 86, 488 S.E.2d 361 (1996). In that case, the juvenile being questioned was accompanied by his mother and aunt, both of whom had been suspects in ......
  • In re James LP
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1999
    ...of "arrest" status. State v. Ellsworth J.R., 175 W.Va. 64, 70-71, 331 S.E.2d 503, 509 (1985). See also State v. George Anthony W., 200 W.Va. 86, 92, 488 S.E.2d 361, 367 (1996); In the Matter of Steven William T., 201 W.Va. 654, 661, 499 S.E.2d 876, 883 We have already held that the circuit ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT