W.C., In re

Decision Date19 October 1995
Docket NumberNo. 77177,77177
Citation167 Ill.2d 307,657 N.E.2d 908,212 Ill.Dec. 563
Parties, 212 Ill.Dec. 563 In re W.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. W.C., Appellant).
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Nathan P. Eimer, Joseph D. Kearney, Robert R. Kimball, Kathleen M. Mulligan and J. Tyson Covey, Sidley & Austin, Chicago (Karen M. Berman and Maria Woltjen, of counsel), for appellant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, Springfield, and Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney, Chicago (Arleen C. Anderson and Terence M. Madsen, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, Peter Fischer and Elizabeth A. Scholz, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Robert C. Drizin, Assistant Public Defender, Chicago, for amicus curiae Rita A. Fry, Cook County Public Defender.

Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Chicago, for amicus curiae Theodore A. Gottfried, State Appellate Defender.

Justice FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 37, par. 801-1 et seq.), the State filed a delinquency petition in the circuit court of Cook County, alleging respondent, W.C., is accountable (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, par. 5-2(c)) for the first degree murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2)) of Carey Long. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found the allegations proven beyond a reasonable doubt and determined W.C. to be a delinquent minor. The circuit court found also that the murder allegations, stated in the form of two counts, merged together for the single determination of delinquency. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the circuit court adjudged W.C. a ward of the court and committed him to the juvenile division of the Illinois Department of Corrections for an indeterminate period. W.C. appealed.

The appellate court held, inter alia, that: (1) W.C. waived a claimed violation of his

                [212 Ill.Dec. 567] right to remain silent and to counsel by failing to include the claim in a written "post-trial" motion and that, even so, the claimed violation did not rise to the level of plain error;  (2) the allegations supporting the delinquency adjudication were proven beyond a reasonable doubt;  and (3) no error occurred in adjudicating W.C. delinquent based on two counts alleging first degree murder, despite that only one person had been killed.  (261 Ill.App.3d 508, 199 Ill.Dec. 160, 633 N.E.2d 956.)   We granted W.C.'s petition for leave to appeal.  (145 Ill.2d R. 315.)   Based on the following considerations, we now affirm the circuit court's judgment of W.C. as a delinquent minor and a ward of the court
                
ISSUES

We are asked to decide: (1) whether a claimed constitutional violation raised in a delinquency adjudication was waived on appeal for the failure to also make such claim in a written post-adjudication motion; (2) whether respondent's waiver of the right to remain silent and to counsel was knowing and intelligent such that his statement to police was properly admitted into evidence; (3) whether respondent was found delinquent based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) whether error occurred by finding that respondent was delinquent and committing him to the Department of Corrections based on two offenses of first degree murder where only one person was killed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 28, 1992, Carey L. Long, "Skip," aged 29 years and a drug abuser, was fatally shot in the face and back by Othenio Lucas, "Pooh-Pooh," aged 17 years, a reputed drug dealer. Shortly after the shooting, Long's six-foot, one-inch, 180-pound body was found by police lying in the rear courtyard area of an apartment building. On May 29, 1992, police interviewed John Crafton pursuant to their investigation of Long's death. As a result of the interview, police learned that W.C. had been present at the scene of the shooting and in the company of William Hodges, "Juan," aged 14 years. W.C. was then 13 years old, five feet, two inches tall and weighed 90 to 100 pounds. Based on the information obtained from Crafton, police went to W.C.'s home and requested that his mother bring him to the police station.

W.C. and his mother, accompanied by two police officers with whom the mother was familiar, arrived at the police station at around 6 p.m. W.C. was taken into temporary custody by officers at the station, and he and his mother were taken to an interview room. Once there, Detectives Cliff Gehrke and Joseph Fine read Miranda warnings to W.C. directly from their police manual. According to the officers, W.C. indicated to them that he understood his rights by responding "I understand" to each Miranda query. W.C. agreed to talk and gave an oral statement in the presence of his mother, the detectives and police youth officer Deanna Hall. Although W.C. initially began to relate a false version of events, his mother soon directed him to tell the truth, and W.C. related an apparently truthful version. Gehrke took notes. At some point, Fine left the interview room to contact an assistant State's Attorney. At another point, W.C. and his mother had an opportunity to privately talk when both officers left the room.

After a brief period, Assistant State's Attorney Diane Sheridan entered the interview room and repeated Miranda warnings to W.C. According to the State, Sheridan explained the warnings to W.C. and he indicated that he understood them. As Sheridan took notes, W.C. repeated his prior oral statement. Sheridan then left the room briefly to reduce her notes to a formal written statement. She subsequently returned to the room and read the written statement aloud to W.C. and his mother because W.C.'s mother was upset and neither she nor W.C. possessed the ability to read the document. All persons present, W.C., his mother, Sheridan, Fine and Hall signed all three pages of the document, which stated in pertinent part:

"After being advised of his constitutional rights, and stating he understood each of those rights, and after being advised that he did not have to talk to [Sheridan] and also understanding that Diane Sheridan was an Assistant State's Attorney, a lawyer and prosecutor and not his lawyer [W.C.] states that he is 13 years old and goes to Libby School. [W.C.] states that he can understand English but cannot read very well. [W.C.] agrees to have his mother * * * read him his statement so he can understand it. * * *

[W.C.] agreed to give a truthful account of what happened on May 28, 1992.

[W.C.] states that his nickname is Bey. [W.C.] states on May 28, 1992 at around 8:00 at night, he was at 5447 S. Indiana Chicago. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh, also known as, Othenio Lucas had hidden his drugs at an abandoned building. [W.C.] states that a man, Skip had gone into the building and took Pooh-Pooh's drugs. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh had a gun also in the building and Pooh-Pooh went to get the gun when he found out the man, Skip had taken his drugs. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh said he was going to kill the man for taking his drugs. [W.C.] states he was with Juan Hodges and they each picked up a stick and hit the man who took the drugs. [W.C.] states he hit the man in the arm and Juan hit the man in the head but the stick broke. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh came out of the building with the gun and shot the man. [W.C.] states he heard the gun go off four times. [W.C.] states that he and Juan and Pooh-Pooh all ran away.

* * * [W.C.] understands that he can add anything or change anything by asking Diane Sheridan or his mother * * * to do so now. [W.C.] states that there were two other people with Skip. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh shot four times at Skip while Skip was running away. [W.C.] states that Pooh-Pooh then fired some shots at the other two people."

The questioning concluded around 7:40 p.m. W.C. was detained, pending a determination of delinquency based on two counts of first degree murder by accountability.

The circuit court conducted a section 5-4 transfer hearing to decide whether W.C. would be criminally prosecuted as an adult. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 37, par. 805-4.) Officer Hall testified that although she remembered reading in the written statement that W.C. had said he knew Lucas was going to get a gun to kill Long, she did not remember hearing him say that during the interrogation. W.C.'s written statement was offered to and received by the court without objection. See People v. Taylor (1979), 76 Ill.2d 289, 302-03, 29 Ill.Dec. 103, 391 N.E.2d 366 (transfer hearing proceedings not adjudicatory in nature).

The social investigation report indicated that W.C. had received three station adjustments and that three charges once brought against him had been dropped with leave to reinstate. W.C.'s school records indicated that he was in sixth grade, had received failing grades throughout his entire education and had never been evaluated for special educational services. Dr. Diane Stone, a Chicago board of education school psychologist, testified at the transfer hearing that W.C. was illiterate and moderately mentally retarded with an IQ of 48, which Stone stated was the equivalent developmentally of a six- to eight-year-old. A psychological examination summary, prepared by a court psychologist, also described W.C. as being moderately mentally retarded, stuttering, and possessing the emotional maturity of a six- to seven-year-old.

W.C.'s mother testified, confirming that she was a poor reader. When asked why she had signed the written statement, W.C.'s mother replied, "[I] had signed it because the State had told me and my son to sign this paper because these are the words my son have said, and me and my son signed it." Among other matters, W.C.'s mother did not remember hearing him state that Lucas told him he was going to get a gun and kill Long.

The circuit court subsequently found that in the best interests of the minor and the security of the public W.C. should not be transferred to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
266 cases
  • People v. Daoud
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 20 Julio 2000
    ...use one's statements to secure a conviction and of the fact that one can stand mute and request a lawyer. [In re W.C., 167 Ill.2d 307, 328, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d 908 (1995).] Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining defendant's ability to make a knowing......
  • People v. O'Neal
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...statement was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair." In re W.C. , 167 Ill. 2d 307, 328, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d 908, 919 (1995). Accordingly, when presented with questions of "whether an accused [juvenile] knowingly and intelligently waived......
  • In re GO
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 23 Marzo 2000
    ...not punishment. See, e.g., In re Beasley, 66 Ill.2d 385, 389, 6 Ill.Dec. 202, 362 N.E.2d 1024 (1977); In re W.C., 167 Ill.2d 307, 320, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d 908 (1995). The prior analysis on this issue is flawed, however, because it relied on an outmoded characterization of the juven......
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 11 Diciembre 2013
    ...(1) the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal or (2) there was a common criminal design. In re W.C., 167 Ill.2d 307, 337, 212 Ill.Dec. 563, 657 N.E.2d 908 (1995). “Active participation has never been a requirement for the imposition of criminal guilt upon the theory of accou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...75, 727 NE2d 1028, 245 Ill Dec 294 (2000), §1:60 In re Vrdolyak , 137 Ill2d 407, 560 NE2d 840, 148 Ill Dec 243 (1990), §1:63 In re W.C. , 167 Ill2d 307, 657 NE2d 908, 212 Ill Dec 563 (1995), §21:224 International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 37 v. City of Springfield , 378 Ill App......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Pretrial Practice - Volume 1
    • 1 Mayo 2020
    ...[see §21:150 ff ], the waiver must show an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the known right or privilege. [ In re W.C. , 167 Ill 2d 307, 657 NE2d 908, 212 Ill Dec 563 (1995).] The privilege is waived when the party takes the stand to testify on his or her own behalf. [ People v.......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...[see §21:150 ff ], the waiver must show an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the known right or privilege. [ In re W.C. , 167 Ill 2d 307, 657 NE2d 908, 212 Ill Dec 563 (1995).] The privilege is waived when the party takes the stand to testify on his or her own behalf. [ People v.......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2016 Contents
    • 10 Agosto 2016
    ...[see §21:150 ff ], the waiver must show an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the known right or privilege. [ In re W.C. , 167 Ill 2d 307, 657 NE2d 908, 212 Ill Dec 563 (1995).] The privilege is waived when the party takes the stand to testify on his or her own behalf. [ People v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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