T.C. v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. CA 08–1306.,CA 08–1306. |
| Parties | T.C., a minor, Appellant,v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dorcy K. Corbin, Pulaski County Public Defender's Office, Little Rock, for appellant.Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Deborah Nolan Gore, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge.
[Ark. App. 1] Appellant, T.C., is a minor who was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of second-degree murder on April 3, 2008, in Ouachita County Circuit Court. On August 15, 2008, a disposition hearing was held and appellant was committed to the Division of Youth Services (DYS) and, if released prior to his eighteenth birthday, to be placed on probation until his eighteenth birthday. He appeals the delinquency finding and disposition, raising six points for our review. We affirm.
On August 7, 2006, officers with the Camden Police Department responded to a call from appellant's home where he lived with his mother and eleven-year-old sister. Appellant and his mother discovered the sister dead in her bedroom and called the police around 11:45 [Ark. App. 2] a.m. When police arrived, appellant and his mother waited outside in a relative's car, and at the request of police, were driven by relatives to the police station. At approximately 4:30 p.m., appellant's mother was the first to be interviewed, while appellant remained in the station's break room with family. The mother's interview was videotaped, and it lasted for approximately one hour. Appellant was then interviewed by police from about 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. This interview was also videotaped. Appellant was read his Miranda rights about forty-five minutes into the interview. He agreed to waive his rights and initialed and signed a waiver form. During the interview, appellant told officers he was thirsty, and he was brought water. Later he told officers he was hungry, and the interview was stopped while appellant was given food.
Appellant was allowed to eat in another office. During appellant's dinner, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Gregg Parrish sat with appellant for five to ten minutes. The prosecutor testified that he chatted with appellant about school, video games, and what kinds of things his sister liked. He testified that he did not discuss the case with appellant, keep appellant from leaving the room, or threaten appellant by mentioning the death penalty, and neither he nor anyone in his presence otherwise threatened appellant or promised him anything.
While appellant was in the office where he had eaten dinner, several police officers were in and out of the room, speaking with appellant about general things, and then specifically about what had happened the previous night with his sister. After he admitted [Ark. App. 3] to the officers that he placed plastic bags over his sister's face and bound her hands and feet, appellant was taken to the interview room to record his confession.
At approximately 10:20 p.m., Officer Evin Zeek again advised appellant of his Miranda rights and asked whether he understood each of them. When Officer Zeek read the waiver to appellant, appellant asked him to explain what a “waiver” is. The officer explained that it means he is deciding to give a statement of his own free will, that he has not been promised anything or threatened in any way, and that he is making a statement to the police solely because he wants to. Appellant then indicated that he understood and signed the waiver form. Appellant then confessed to the officers what he had told them earlier.
A petition was filed August 15, 2006, in the Ouachita County Circuit Court seeking a declaration that the juvenile be found delinquent pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9–27–303 (Repl.2008), and charging him with first-degree murder in the death of his sister. By order filed November 22, 2006, the trial court found appellant fit to proceed and had the capacity to: possess the necessary mental state required for the offense charged; conform his conduct to the requirements of the law; and appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress on February 13, 2007, claiming that his statement to police was elicited in violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth [Ark. App. 4] Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. He claimed that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily consent to giving a statement or waiving counsel due to his immaturity. He further claimed that his mother was not an appropriate person to consent to his questioning and taping as she was also a suspect. He claimed that he should have had an ad litem appointed before questioning; that the questioning was inordinately long; and, that his statements were coerced because the deputy prosecuting attorney threatened to charge him as an adult. As a result, he claimed that his statement was involuntary and/or false and should be suppressed.
By order of June 27, 2007, the State's request to have appellant's case designated as an Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) case pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9–27–501 (Repl.2008) was granted.1 Appellant filed a motion to reject waiver and supplemental motion to suppress on July 27, 2007. On August 27, 2007, the State amended its petition against appellant charging him with murder in the second degree. On August 31, 2007, and October 29, 2007, the trial court held a hearing regarding the pretrial motions and denied appellant's motion to suppress statement and motion to reject waiver and supplemental motion to suppress.
[Ark. App. 5] By order filed March 18, 2008, the trial court specifically found that the State met its burden in proving that the waiver of right to counsel signed by appellant and his mother prior to appellant's confession was freely, voluntarily and intelligently made. The trial court further found that under the totality of the circumstances the statement made by appellant should not be suppressed. The trial court found that appellant understood the consequences of the waiver and that it was not the result of any coercion, force or inducement. Further, that the confession was not unreliable and was given of appellant's own free will. The trial court found no violations of Rules 2.2 or 2.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2008) or Arkansas Code Annotated section 9–27–317(h) (Repl.2008).
A bench trial was held March 18, 19, 20, and 24, 2008. A “Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss” was filed April 2, 2008, alleging that the State failed to prove each and every element of murder in the second degree, therefore, the charge should be dismissed. On April 3, 2008, the trial court denied the motion in a ruling from the bench and discussed its reasoning:
We were talking about a time period off camera. Defendant, juvenile gives a statement. There's a time period off camera in which he talks to other officers, talked to the deputy prosecuting attorney, a meal comes in and a lot goes on off camera, a substantial amount of time. Then there's a confession. So you have a recorded denial, time off camera, confession comes during the time off camera, and then an on-camera confession. The defense made reference to the fact that in and of itself is a basis to suppress because of the time off camera. Something had to happen. That's true. What went on during the time off camera is crucial. The State came forward and called witness after witness to testify and explain what occurred off camera. They called all the officers that were in contact. They called the prosecuting attorney. There was no evidence presented about what happened off [Ark. App. 6] camera, other than what the State's witnesses offered. The Court did comment because the defense was alleging that things could have been said to the juvenile that overcame his will and showed coercion to make him say what he said. In a suppression hearing, when talking, the Court didn't use the fact that the juvenile remained silent against him, the Court merely commented on the fact that the State had come forward and explained what happened during that time period. And there was nothing else there offered to say something other than what the State's witnesses said happened during that lapsed period.... But the arguments that were made by the defense about things occurring off camera, they provided no evidence of any things that occurred off camera to refute the version offered by the State. So I can't assume things occurred when there's no evidence before the Court for the Court to attach something to. All I had was people who were there said, All the Court could do under those circumstances, it found them credible. They were cross examined. They still came across as credible....
The trial judge elaborated on the evidence before him and explained his ultimate finding that the evidence was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offense by knowingly engaging in the conduct that led to his sister's death. The trial court found that the State met its burden of proof in establishing the elements for second-degree murder, adjudicating “True” on the amended petition.
After a disposition hearing held August 15, 2008, the trial court committed appellant to DYS. The trial court stated that in the event appellant is released prior to his eighteenth birthday, appellant will be placed on probation until his eighteenth birthday. This appeal followed.
We are obligated to first address appellant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument because of double-jeopardy considerations. See [Ark. App. 7] Stenhouse v. State, 362 Ark. 480, 209 S.W.3d 352 (2005). Appellant contends that assuming that his confession was both reliable and credible, there was a total failure to prove that he knowingly murdered his sister.
He argues that his confession reflects that he did not know that she had died....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.C. v. State
...T.C. appealed his delinquency order and disposition to the court of appeals, and the court of appeals affirmed. See T.C. v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 604, 342 S.W.3d 832. T.C. next filed a petition for review with this court, which we granted. When we grant review, we treat the appeal as if it w......