State v. Clofer
80 So. 3d 639
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Howard Gofer, a juvenile near 17, was charged with attempted first-degree murder and two armed robberies in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
- The State amended the bill to dismiss the murder count and add Gofer to Count Two for attempted armed robbery; Gofer later pleaded guilty to two armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery under a Crosby plea.
- A suppression hearing was held on the challenged statement, identification, and home-seizure evidence; the State bore the burden to prove admissibility.
- Sgt. Varmall advised Gofer and his aunt of rights using a Juvenile Rights Form; both signed acknowledging understanding.
- Gofer gave two audio statements; initial statements denied weapon use, later admitting a .38 gun after questioning for inconsistencies.
- Gofer’s mother testified she could not be present immediately; his aunt accompanied him to the bureau; mother’s later absence and lack of close relationship with Gofer were noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of rights was knowing and voluntary for a juvenile | Wicker argues safeguards were not followed to ensure voluntariness. | Gofer contends protective juvenile measures were insufficient. | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; State met burden. |
| Whether the juvenile safeguards required meaningful consultation with an adult before waiver | State argues no mandatory consult required post-Lathers. | Gofer asserts aunt did not adequately protect his rights. | Totality of circumstances supports validity; no reversible error. |
| Whether there are patent errors requiring correction | State identifies arraignment and commitment issues on the record. | Gofer argues irregularities affected validity of proceedings. | Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded to amend commitment and minutes. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fernandez, 712 So.2d 485 (La. 1998) (age not determinative; voluntariness hinges on totality of circumstances)
- State v. Lathers, 15 So.3d 1068 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2009) (no affirmative requirement for meaningful consultation with attorney or informed adult)
- State ex rel. J.E.T., 10 So.3d 1264 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2009) (distinguishable where juvenile was 11; coercive tactics alleged)
- State v. Rose, 924 So.2d 1107 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2006) (requires Miranda advisement and voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Terrick, 857 So.2d 1153 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2003) (reviewing court respects trial court credibility findings on voluntariness)