*2 EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, Before NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT NIX, Justice. by jury in
Appellant was tried a Jeffrie Carr Pleas, Philadelphia County and con- Common conspiracy degree, of murder of the first criminal victed shooting possession of an of crime in the and instrument Following 15-year-old youth. denial of death a posttrial on motions, Carr received life sentence a suspended murder indictment and sentences on re- maining charges. only Appellant appealed the murder conviction to this Court we affirm.1 now incriminating
Appellant argues that his state police during interrogation ments made to the custodial should not been trial evidence have introduced at as *3 against questioning him because at the time the he of age opportunity was 17 and was not afforded the to con sult with or counsel another interested and informed prior surrendering rights. adult to his constitutional Starkes, 178, See Commonwealth v. 461 Pa.
(1975);
Roane,
389,
Commonwealth v.
329
459 Pa.
A.2d
(1974).
attempts
286
The Commonwealth first
to coun
ter
by asserting
this contention
the
that
had
deliberately misrepresented
police
age
to the
that his
was
urged
over 18.
It is
attempt
that this
tb
should
deceive
preclude appellant
any
now
raising
from
claim based
upon
minority
his
at the time of his arrest. Our concern
relating to the
surrounding
circumstances
the waiver of
rights2 by
Miranda
years
age
one under
of
18
was in
spired by
recognition
juvenile’s
a
immaturity
that
the
rendered
uniquely
pressures
him
vulnerable
the
of a
to
appeal
pursuant
Jurisdiction
of the
Appellate
is
to the
31, 1970,
673,
223,
Jurisdiction
July
II,
Act Act of
§
P.L.
No.
art.
202(1),
§211.202(1).
17 P.S.
436,
Arizona,
2. Miranda
1602,
384 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
89 by the atmosphere. As United police noted custodial Supreme Court: States privilege against the constitutional that
We conclude juveniles applicable of in the case self-incrimination appreciate spe- that respect it is with to adults. We as respect of the problems may to arise with waiver cial children, there privilege and that by of or on behalf in technique not may in well be some differences —but age upon the principle depending the of child and the — parents. participa- presence competence of The and course, police, the Juve- will, of assist of counsel tion administering in appellate tribunals nile Courts and present some privilege. If was not counsel obtained, permissible an was reason when admission greatest that the ad- be taken to assure care must only voluntary, that the sense not was mission suggested, it was not was not or but also coerced ignorance fan- product rights of of or adolescent tasy, fright despair. or L. 1, 55, Gault,
In re 87 S.Ct. U.S. (footnote omitted) (1967). Ed.2d 527 police attempt officials to deceive Carr’s ill-conceived immaturity his age only to true accentuates the as his protection. judgment the need stresses additional deception foreclose careful attempted a to allow his To surrounding alleged his scrutiny of the circumstances underpin- very ignore require would us waiver principle. nings of the *4 argues we that
Secondly, the Commonwealth is the because claim of the instant find a waiver should hearing suppression the specifically at raised was not sue the clear from it is post-trial during motions. Since or during the offered contention was not this record that whether consider not proceedings, we need post-trial stage. This suppression the raised at properly was grounds chal for the repeatedly stated that has present- must be admissibility statement of a lenging the 90 preserved post-verdict on motions if the issue to be
ed appellate Jackson, review. Commonwealth v. 464 Pa. Bronaugh, (1975); v. 292, Commonwealth 634, (1975); 171 v. 459 Pa. 331 A.2d Commonwealth Accordingly, Clair, 418, (1974). 458 Pa. A.2d 272 326 this has claim been waived. alleged in
It is the court erred also that trial jury. appellant’s denying request without a to be tried appellant pursue Again, not the record indicates that did argument post-trial it will therefore, this on motions and appeal. not be for the first time on Common considered (1975); Ash, 670, Com wealth v. Pa. 337 A.2d 461 821 supra.3 Bronaugh, monwealth v.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. participate POMEROY, J.,
JONES, J., did not C. this in the decision of case. consideration or J., concurring opinion. ROBERTS, filed a ROBERTS, (concurring). Justice incriminating Appellant statements that his contends interrogation were police during custodial made to the opportunity the he was not afforded inadmissible because informed to or interested and consult with counsel an g. rights. waiving E. his constitutional adult before 400, A.2d 829 Chaney, 350 Pa. v. 465 Commonwealth this contention appellant not (1975). However, did raise preserve to therefore failed post-trial has motions and g. appellate Commonwealth review. E. this issue (1975) and cases 634, A.2d 171 Bronaugh, 459 Pa. the sufficiency question of of Although raised motions, pursue issue post-verdict did not during he evidence find- of the view argument Court. In this before in his brief or ing reviewed degree, have nevertheless we of first murder introduced the evidence satisfied that are the trial record and February See Act verdict. support was sufficient 15, 2, § § P.L. P.S. *5 preserve this is- did not cited Since therein. effect, any, ap- if sue, unnecessary to decide police pellant misrepresentation he was over to the years age. eighteen Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of George ROUNDTREE. Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Submitted March Decided Feb. appellant. Briskin, Philadelphia, for
Joshua M. Atty., Fitzpatrick, H. Dist. Steven Gold- Emmett F. appellee. Chief, Appeals blatt, Atty., Div., Asst. Dist. EAGEN, O’BRIEN, J., ROB- JONES, Before C. MANDERINO, POMEROY, JJ. ERTS, NIX and