D.M. v. State
949 N.E.2d 327
Ind.2011Background
- D.M., 13, and C.W. allegedly committed Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft on Jan 13, 2010, by entering Braunagel's residence and taking items.
- Police arrested D.M. and C.W. and transported them to the Braunagel residence where Mother learned of the arrest.
- Detention and rights advisement occurred: Quigley read the Juvenile Waiver form to D.M. and Mother, who signed the advisement portion.
- Quigley provided time for private consultation; he left them in a car, turned off the recorder, and returned after several minutes; they then signed the waiver of rights and D.M. confessed.
- State filed a delinquency petition on Jan 14, 2010; at the April 1, 2010 factfinding hearing, the confession was admitted and the court found the allegations true.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished order; this Court granted transfer and vacated that decision in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaningful consultation with parent occurred? | D.M. contends mother consultation was inadequate. | State argues adequate private consultation occurred. | Yes; substantial evidence supports meaningful consultation free from police pressure. |
| Waiver of rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | D.M. challenges voluntariness of his waiver. | State asserts totality of circumstances supports voluntariness. | Yes; waiver valid under totality of circumstances and accompanying consultation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 751 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 2001) (statutory/constitutional safeguards for juvenile waiver analysis cited)
- Lewis v. State, 259 Ind. 431, 288 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1972) (requirement of meaningful consultation in juvenile waiver)
- Fortson v. State, 270 Ind. 289, 385 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 1979) (consultation goal and waiver voluntariness framework)
- Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138 (Ind. 1999) (private, pressure-free consultation precedes waiver)
- Patton v. State, 588 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 1992) (consultation purpose and police pressures considerations)
- Whipple v. State, 523 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1988) (limits on police influence during consultation)
- Gault (In re), 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juvenile due process and custodial interrogation safeguards)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (Miranda obligations semantics and voluntariness)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (U.S. 2010) (implied waivers and voluntary statements)