In Re Kevin K.
299 Conn. 107
Conn.2010Background
- Petitioner State appeals after Appellate Court reversed trial court’s delinquency finding for Kevin K. on two offenses: reckless burning (GLSA §53a-114) and making a false statement (GLSA §53a-157b).
- Initial rights advisement occurred Oct. 9, 2005; respondent and mother signed waiver and parental consent forms.
- Second interview Oct. 11, 2005 occurred without readvisement; respondent admitted facts contradicting earlier statement; both statements signed.
- Appellate Court held readvisement required under §46b-137(a); trial court denied suppression; conviction upheld by trial court.
- Supreme Court granted certification on whether readvisement was required and whether custody affected Miranda rights; Court reversed Appellate Court on both grounds and affirmed suppression-claim analysis.
- Case remanded for affirmance of trial court’s judgment if applicable; opinion discusses totality-of-the-circumstances standard and the role of parent presence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §46b-137(a) requires readvisement before a second statement | State argues readvisement not required given initial advisement on Oct. 9 | Kevin K. contends readvisement was necessary to protect rights | Yes, readvisement required under totality of circumstances |
| Whether the Oct. 11, 2005 statement was obtained in custody for Miranda purposes | State asserts not in custody; custodial threshold not met | Respondent argues custody existed | No custodial interrogation; Miranda not triggered |
| Effect of time lapse between advisement and second interview under Miranda/46b-137(a) | Time lapse prompted readvisement | Time lapse did not undermine advisement validity given circumstances | Totality of circumstances favored no readvisement; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (juvenile-advisement context; purpose to aid valid waiver)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (due process protections for juveniles; heightened safeguards)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required when in custody and interrogated)
- Pruden, 398 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (totality-of-circumstances in readvisement analysis)
- Ledbetter, 263 Conn. 1 (2003) (state law approach to juvenile advisement; factors for understanding rights)
- Brown v. State, 661 P.2d 1024 (Wy. 1983) (state-level totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2005) (flexible readvisement standard; no per se rule)
- Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42 (1982) (no fixed readvisement rule; focus on circumstances)