In re E.W.
114 A.3d 112
Vt.2015Background
- E.W., 15, in DCF custody, living in a foster home, questioned by a state trooper at the foster home regarding stolen property.
- Foster father present during questioning; he privately spoke with E.W. before and during the interview.
- GAL advised presence of independent adult; officer, GAL, and foster father coordinated the interview.
- Interview lasted about an hour, began inside the home and moved to the porch and nearby stand; no Miranda warnings were given.
- E.W. made admissions beyond the car theft; trial court denied suppression; the court reversed and held E.W. was in custody requiring Miranda warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was E.W. in custody for Miranda purposes during interrogation? | E.W. argues yes; interrogation occurred in custody conditions without Miranda warnings. | State argues no custody existed under the total circumstances. | Yes, E.W. was in custody; Miranda warnings required. |
| Does the presence of an independent, interested adult affect custody analysis for Article 10? | Presence of independent adult is essential for Article 10 waiver. | Independent adult consult is connected to custody/waiver analysis but not mandated pre-custody. | Independent adult consult relates to custody analysis when custodial interrogation occurs; not required if noncustodial. |
| Is a juvenile’s age a dispositive factor in custody analysis? | Age should push toward custody given youth vulnerability. | Age is only a factual consideration, not dispositive. | Age is a relevant factor but not dispositive; in this case it supported custody. |
| Do interview location and setting support custody? | Foster-home setting could indicate noncustody due to informality. | Setting alone does not compel noncustody; other factors control. | Setting alone does not determine custody; however, combined with other factors supported custody. |
| Who bears the burden to prove custody for Miranda purposes? | E.W. bears the burden to prove he was in custody. | State bears burden only after custody is shown. | Burden rests on the defendant to prove custody; if custody shown, State must prove waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.T.C., 141 Vt. 375 (1982) (juvenile right to consult independent adult under Article 10 attaches with custody, not before)
- State v. Piper, 143 Vt. 468 (1983) (independent adult consultation tied to custodial interrogation; cannot be required before custody)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (age of child is relevant to custody analysis in an objective framework)
- State v. Sullivan, 2013 VT 71 (Vt. 2013) (custody factors; most important factor is whether told free to leave; age and setting considered)
- State v. LeClaire, 2003 VT 4 (Vt. 2003) (burden of proving custody and Miranda applicability)
- State v. Oney, 2009 VT 116 (Vt. 2009) (Article 10 coextensive with Fifth Amendment; custody analysis governs waiver)
- State v. Pontbriand, 2005 VT 20 (Vt. 2005) ( custody analysis framework under Vermont law)
- State v. Muntean, 2010 VT 88 (Vt. 2010) (physical setting as a factor in custody analysis)
- Hieu Tran, 2012 VT 104 (Vt. 2012) (age of suspect as a factor in custody analysis)