State v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 23 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 1653,1653
• Citation: 101 Ariz. 410,420 P.2d 281
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse Milton SANDERS, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 281

420 P.2d 281

101 Ariz. 410

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesse Milton SANDERS, Appellant.

No. 1653.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Nov. 23, 1966.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Arthur R. Buller, Tucson, for appellant.

LOCKWOOD, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for robbery. At the trial defendant's signed confession was introduced in evidence. Following the rendition of the verdict and judgment Sanders made a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. That motion was denied and this appeal ensued.

Defendant, a minor, aged seventeen years, was arrested at about 11:30 P.M., December 20, 1964, in connection with the robbery of a Circle K food store earlier that evening. The arresting officer informed Sanders of his right to contact counsel, to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him. He then took him to the police station and upon arrival there notified the juvenile authorities and received permission to question Sanders. The defendant's parents were also called. The defendant was questioned at the station until about 2:00 A.M. and then transported to the Juvenile Detention Home. He made no damaging statements during this first interrogation.

On the afternoon of December 21, the police asked for, and received permission to question the defendant further at the Juvenile Detention Home. The defendant was questioned for more than an hour and agreed to sign a written statement later. Following this interview the defendant was given an opportunity to eat his supper, but he declined food. After his refusal to eat, the officers received permission to take the defendant to the police station in order to transcribe his confession. Shortly after his arrival at the station, Sanders made and signed a confession implicating himself in the robbery of the Circle K food store on December 20th. On December 22nd the Juvenile Court judge refused to suspend criminal prosecution, and directed that the proper proceedings be had as in the case of an adult.

The defendant claims that the statement given was inadmissible (1) since the process of defendant's interrogation was in violation of A.R.S. § 8--221, and (2) that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to grant a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. This evidence was adduced in a subsequent trial on a different charge, when it appeared that the interviewing officer in order to induce Sanders to confess, told him that in a similar case involving a youth and an older man the older man attempted to put all the blame on the youth.

A.R.S. § 8--221 reflects the public policy of this state in treating juvenile offenders in a manner different from hardened criminals. This statute provides that upon the arrest of a minor under the age of eighteen, the arresting officer shall 'forthwith' notify the probation officer and make such disposition of the child as the probation officer orders. The statute does not permit of any willful delay. The arresting officer must contact the probation officer at the earliest reasonable opportunity. State v. Shaw, 93 Ariz. 40, 378 P.2d 487 (1963). In the present case the arresting officers notified the juvenile authorities within one-half hour of the arrest and received permission to interrogate the defendant at the police station. We stated in State v. Shaw, 93 Ariz. 40, 50, 378 P.2d 487, 493 (1963):

'Our rule does not prevent the police from questioning a juvenile--it only prevents them from subjecting the juvenile to formal interrogation without permission of the person appointed by law to see that the interrogation procedure is conducted in a manner consonant with the purposes and policies of juvenile rehabilitation. The legislature has made the decision of public policy in providing for a representative in the person of the probation officer. Certainly in the proper discharge of his duties, the latter would not be acting in the interest of the juvenile or of society merely by preventing interrogation--he could and should only prevent overzealous pressure.'

No incriminating statement was received from the defendant during this first interrogation in the police station. Following this first interview, the defendant was checked into the Juvenile Detention Home. About thirteen hours later the police received permission to interview the defendant at the Home. At this interview the defendant agreed to sign a statement. The police then were given permission to take the defendant down to the police station to have this statement prepared. There appears to have been no overreaching on the part of the interrogating police officers, and no violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 8--221. Thus, the confession is...