In re D.B.
2018 Ohio 1247
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2014, then-15-year-old D.B. was accused of sexually abusing his 5-year-old half-sister, A.B.; allegations led to a CAC forensic interview and medical referral.
- D.B. was interviewed at the CAC on July 30, 2014 (no Miranda warnings given); he denied contact at that time.
- On August 11, 2014, D.B. submitted to a polygraph at Ohio State Highway Patrol after signing a written waiver; he then admitted multiple acts including manual, oral, and attempted penile penetration.
- Detective Nommay telephoned D.B. on August 12, 2014 (no Miranda warnings) and D.B. repeated admissions; delinquency complaints followed and multiple charges were filed across two cases.
- Magistrate initially suppressed polygraph statements but the juvenile court set aside that suppression, finding the polygraph waiver knowing and voluntary and that the July 30 and August 12 interviews were noncustodial.
- After a bench trial D.B. was adjudicated delinquent on several charges; D.B. appealed, arguing (1) his Miranda waiver was involuntary and (2) corpus delicti for penile penetration was not independently established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 30 CAC interview required Miranda warnings (custodial?) | Not custodial; warnings not required; statements admissible | CAC setting, secured area, parent-arranged transport made interview custodial | Court: Not custodial; warnings not required; statements admissible |
| Whether polygraph statements (Aug 11) were admissible — was waiver voluntary? | Trooper read/ explained Miranda waiver; D.B. signed; waiver knowing, voluntary under totality | Father coerced polygraph; D.B. confused; waiver not voluntary | Court: Waiver voluntary; statements admissible |
| Whether Aug 12 telephone call was custodial or tainted as fruit of polygraph | Not custodial (can hang up); even if based on polygraph, polygraph statements admissible | Phone call was interrogation relying on involuntary polygraph admissions; should be suppressed | Court: Telephone noncustodial; statements admissible; not fruit of poisonous tree |
| Whether corpus delicti for penile penetration was established independent of D.B.’s confession | Child’s statements and medical/referral circumstances supply independent evidence | State lacked independent evidence of penile penetration; confession should be excluded | Court: Corpus delicti satisfied by extrinsic evidence (child’s age, disclosures, medical referral); confession admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (procedural safeguards required for custodial interrogation)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (custody analysis — would a reasonable person feel free to terminate questioning)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (juvenile age is relevant to custody analysis if known or apparent)
- In re Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio: juvenile waivers evaluated under totality of circumstances even absent interested adult)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364 (corpus delicti requires some extrinsic evidence independent of confession)