*1 MATTER OF SPALDING 59, September Term, [No. 1974.] Decided, February 13, 1975. argued J., The cause "before C. Murphy, Singley, Eldridge JJ. Digges, Smith, Levine, O’Donnell, Habiger Meóla, J. with whom Richard Gerard brief, appellant. *2 General, Attorney with Raum, A.
Bernard Assistant General, Attorney W. Burch, Clarence whom were Francis B. General, Keane, Attorneys Sharp I. on and James Assistant brief, appellee. opinion Levine, J., of delivered the Court. Eldridge, J., opinion dissenting page dissents and filed a 709infra. 1, Gault, S. In re 387 S. 87 In the decision of U. landmark (1967), Supreme held, for 527 Court Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d time, that various of the federal constitutional the first ordinary proceedings guarantees accompanying are criminal delinquency instances, juvenile to applicable, certain state safeguards, Those all embraced within fundamental cases. procedural process, charges; right to due Notice of are: counsel; cross-examination; and the confrontation and to privilege Appellant seeks self-incrimination. — specific holding reference extend that — crimination to another area of court self-in Maryland, jurisdiction in known as “Children Need (CINS).1 Supervision” Matter Carter Special Appeals in upheld (1974), A. 2d 269 App. 20 318 Md.
Spalding, County sitting as for Baltimore of the Circuit Court decision granted Court, appellant’s claim. We rejecting a Juvenile police made to the statements certiorari to consider whether — — years age been should have by appellant then 13 right suppressed; denied her constitutional whether she was testify; she should have been and whether to refuse regard police permitted to officer with cross-examine a to him and of the statements made both voluntariness Arizona, v. S. warnings mandated Miranda U. 694, 10 (1966). 1602,16 L.Ed.2d A.L.R.3d 974
S. Ct. court; cases, juvenile juvenile delinquency In1. addition to and CINS alleged Maryland possess original jurisdiction over children also exclusive dependent; neglected; mentally handicapped. to be early morning January 31, 1973, hours of Officer Joseph Price, W. County member of the Baltimore Police Department assigned station, responded to the Dundalk headquarters instructions from City his to a call from Hospital investigate possible rape and overdose of There, Carter, narcotics. he met a Mr. who advised daughter, age 11, him that his taken had a white tablet impaired speech, which had her had caused a loss of equilibrium pupils. and had dilated her She had also parents admitted to her had engaged she sexual January intercourse with an adult male on 29 in an apartment immediately occupied by family. below that her this climbing She contrived visit down from bedroom questioned by officer, window. When the child acknowledged episode 29th, and added that on the *3 engaged she same occasion had with sexual acts others present including who were two women. The Carters had brought daughter they hospital their because wanted possible her examined for sexual intercourse and treated for drug. the morning, approximately A.M.,
Later that 6:30 Officer again family Price met with the Carter at the Dundalk police response Also phone station. there to a call from appellant the officer were and her mother. The minister of by present. the church both attended families was also superiors and proceeded Officer Price one of his then to interrogate girls disorganized under both somewhat appears conditions. Much of this have to resulted from by minister, interference both the who exercised girls, parents. considerable influence over the and the Ultimately, permission latter, Officer Price girls. obtained written statements from both The officer parents girls testified the . . later had “. insisted the They they giving sometime, the information. were at were girls yelling girls being upset, some at the [sic] They crying, they trying to were calm them down. were trying getting they help to and assist all the information could.”
In her oral and police written to statements subsequently given morning, as in her to as well statements detectives, appellant admitted Bureau Juvenile the 29th as had been participation in the same events of youngster. doing so, supplied by the Carter she described on that the names all those who had been attendance episodes of similar additional occasion. She also recounted male activity in her home with sexual the basement of “parties” residing there; and at a number of other boarders apartment occupied the Carters. She below that early-morning functions, was able to attend these amounting nothing orgies to less than at which adults juveniles heavy attendance, by placing sleep- were in ing pills, pill in She was furnished the her mother’s coffee. parties by to Sheldon and was driven those bizarre one B. ring.” impresario Coon, apparently who was the of the “sex gave girls immediately pill He to on each occasion they departed residences, again before from their they engaged in This seems sexual intercourse. before had influence on them. have a narcotic-like through police struggled their various After had they 31st, girls interrogation procedures on took the station, approval with the the Parkville Services, they Department were detained of Juvenile where overnight. step This was taken because the statements girls upon by Coon, them furnished disclosed assaults they kill ever them revealed who threatened anyone concerning parties. The official information custody” report police specified “protective filed *4 completed had the reason for the detention. Once the interviews, they immediately sought arrest warrants for the girls. large the The men the number of adults identified rape” charged “statutory group in were with and the this practices.” perverted sexual women with “unnatural and girls instances, were listed as victims. both the two February 1, 1973, girls following morning, On the both pursuant brought were to before Juvenile Master Kahl Services, which petitions Department of Juvenile “in being “delinquent and with child” each of meaning and intent within the supervision,2 of need Mary- of Annotated Code 26 of the of Article 70-2 Section in of girls need both The Master found land.” find but, did not treatment, significantly, and care memorandum, Feb- dated “delinquent.” His to be them ruary 1,1973, quoted here: is investigation young
“Police indicates that these girls by group victimized have been of adults in elsewhere, purposes the area and for of Dundalk drug experimentation. It is sexual abuse and not point just damage known at this how much has already done, physically psychologically, and been girls. to these The situation is the one of most my years I in serious that have encountered four Juvenile the Court. girls “Both are need of medical treatment immediately, notwithstanding and whatever wishes parents time, I girls of have this find Supervision In Need and Children them to be Of committing Department of Juvenile am them the they placement, for with the intention Services immediately University admitted to shall be Hospital and treatment. medical evaluation for transported February 7, 1973, they
“On are to be assigned allegations are: these 2. The reasons County Department investigation by Baltimore Police . . “. revealed that respondent consumed controlled and had prohibitive engaged acts of sexual and narcotics [sic] perversion of with an unknown number sexual intercourse and year. period more one of than male respondent deports female adults for parent, ungovernable the control of danger to herself and manner to be a such a as herself in need care and treatment.” others and is 1,1974, January are repealed causes Art. effective 26 was seq., Maryland (1974) et Judicial Courts and 3-801 now covered Code § Proceedings Article. appears previously contain fact, petition referred above 4. In Ironically, suggestion only delinquency in the record. the “complaint” official Services, appar- Department of Juvenile form 1st, ently completed “child need on either 31st lists description.” supervision” the sole “offense *5 for evaluation Maryland Center to the Children’s one month thereafter.” to Court and return added). (emphasis family month, psychiatric and
During ensuing extensive Maryland Children’s Center. at the studies were conducted 1973,immediately upon their return from March On hearing before Center, girls attended a Children’s thorough reports Armed with Master Peach. Juvenile Children’s comprehensive recommendation girl in need of Center, adjudicated to be “a child each he He “in and treatment.” need care supervision” and Department of them to the both of therefore “committed they planning placement so for Services Juvenile help cope with the therapy them receive some can for both of them.” I lie ahead am sure problems which of the findings and recommendations Exceptions to juvenile, of each duly on behalf noted Master were hearing de novo before the by request for a accompanied court. requests, the cases came exceptions and to the
Pursuant May 3, the Circuit Court before for trial on J.), (Jenifer, County sitting as a Juvenile Baltimore argument testimony ensued where extensive Shortly the trial Maryland Rule 908. before accordance on behalf of commenced, motion was filed a written by her suppressing the statements made appellant aimed the staff Service workers and to police, to the Juvenile to the trial, the court outset of the At the the Children’s Center. ruling motion. its on that it would reserve announced that trial, objections to the During the course on the admissibility statements were renewed of those warnings been Miranda had not fourfold grounds that the during prior by any interrogating officers to or given however, Price, had announced any questioning.5 Officer “anything they police station that at the all those assembled Only within the ambit the statements made to the are included pursuant review of Certiorari. our Writ *6 against them they in a law used court of if said could be testimony: in the appears were also charged..” This colloquy Honor, “MR. MEOLA: Your I would like to question warning give the officer about what he did these children. give any
“THE I COURT: don’t think he has to They warning. custody were not for delinquency petition commission a crime or They this time. were volunteered statements given with the consent at the insistence of the parents. warning apply The Miranda doesn’t to statements, added). gentlemen.” (emphasis these groundwork refusal that laid the for one of the It is this questions three framed the Writ Certiorari. trial, asked the court to describe how Later when girls, Officer Price he elicited the statements from stated with, “They begin volunteered all of this information to asking questions try pinpoint it so bizarre I started to to was time and individuals.” The confusion which dates and warning reigned police station and the at the abbreviated excerpt announced Officer Price are demonstrated this testimony: from his
“Q Okay, you parents stated earlier the were shouting girls? at the Everybody yelling trying
“A at each other to information, [Carter], get specifically from Elaine drugs, because she was still under the influence of trying parents get through to her. The were upset.
“Q girls crying? You stated earlier the were Yes, did, yelling parents. “A I from the “Q you Whom did make the statement they them, against statement made would be used you to whom did make that statement? everyone there,
“A I made it in the room they them a anything could be used said court law. you go any Did further?
“THE COURT: crime, they with a Yes, sir, “A were ; named offense. they they quiet or were
“Q this were ydiile Was yelling? still milling I Everybody had a little
“A around. Gatling had there. I bit of trouble with Reverend quiet. just keep him to arrest him threaten parents you “Q know for certain Do *7 statement? heard that anything.” anybody I certain heard
“A be cannot testimony, Price and the Officer of their In the course permitted, over were Bureau the! Juvenile from detectives during girls the various had said what the objection, state prosecuting by the Then, an announcement interviews. stand as a proposed appellant to the attorney he to call vigorous from counsel on objection drew a witness ruling any definitive Prior to ground of self-incrimination. however, her written statement she shown court, January 31, and confirmed Price on given to Officer acknowledged her direct She on its contents. also truth of other testimony certain of the knew Coon and that she When warrants had been issued. persons for adult whom; police anyone whether her own counsel asked required not to make she was had her that station informed replied: statements, any she We it on our own. Well, or less made “A we more kids, they more but figured save some we could rights anything. gave or us no you what?
“THE COURT: Give thought were rights, we Any “A we kinds doing the State a favor. you Well, I understand that
“THE COURT: made; your you own? the statement said “A Yes.”
At the trial, conclusion of the the court rendered its orally, finding decision the evidence overwhelmingly had girls established the supervision need because they “deported had injure themselves so as to endanger or themselves or others” and required “guidance, therefore treatment, rehabilitation.” findings These were incorporated orders, into written which also committed the girls jurisdiction Department of Juvenile placement Services for prescribed foster homes with rights granted visitation parents. to their It is from those appeal orders that Special taken to the Court of Appeals.6 police
The contentions that the statements made to the suppressed hearing; should have been at the court and that police cross-examination of the officer should have been permitted regarding the voluntariness of those statements warnings rejected by and the Miranda were the Court of Special Appeals questioning on the basis that hospital police at the and at the station was not interrogation meaning custodial within the Miranda. holding appellant’s compelled testimony did not privilege against self-incrimination, violate her the Court of Special Appeals carefully traced the enactment of the jurisdictional category, Supervision,” “Child Need of by Chapter Judge created 432 of the Laws of 1969. As Moore *8 court, noted for the such a child refers to one who is: “ ‘(1) Subject compulsory to school attendance who habitually justification
is and without truant school; from
(2) part Without substantial fault on the his
parents, guardian, custodian, or other who is habitually disobedient, ungovernable, control; their (3) deports injure endanger Who so as to or himself others; or or himself Having parents following 6. been released the decision Special Appeals, girl petition Court of did a Carter not this Court for Writ of Certiorari.
699 only applicable an offense (4) Who has committed children; or Requires guidance, treatment rehabilita- (5) ” added). (emphasis App. 20 Md. tion.’ at 649. therefore, to a classification, in marked contrast stands
This “ child,” one ‘who commits defined as “Delinquent treatment, supervision, or requires and who delinquent act Art. [Subject provisions rehabilitation.’ 26, 70-2 § (g) ‘an act (d),] ‘Delinquent act’ was defined § 70-1 any Code, this other of Article 66½ of is violation which be a crime done violation, which would or an act traffic ” (Emphasis original). Md. child.’ person who is not a App. 649-50.7 Special Appeals stressed
Essentially, then, the Court of statutory delinquency between distinctions the basic emphasize taking categories, particular care to CINS prescribed For disposition for each. which are differences Repl. Vol., Supp.) Art. example, Code 26, (1957, § proceedings, 70-19, applicable times material to these at all provided: neglected,
“(a) to be If a child found mentally supervision, delinquent, in need of handicapped, dependent, court make or mental, physical, disposition as most suited to the (except child; no child welfare of the but and moral child) may in an delinquent be confined facility designed operated institution or other provided delinquent children, the benefit apply prohibition shall not to facilities this designed by Department of Juvenile the State Department Mental of Health and Services of the Hygiene. applicable statutory Appropriate then to these references to Art. January
proceedings, effect on and to the recodification which took unnecessary Special Appeals. it We deem were made the Court *9 repeat them here. “(b) adequate facility If an this required by section has not established, been the cefprt facility approve supervision under the control anjl departments juvenile services, of the State of social services, hygiene mental appropriate and other agencies, temporary child-care as such ,usd facility; facility but the use of a which 'does not requirement meet of this section! |may not beyond January continue 1975.” (emphasis added) added). provided,
And 70-21 in also relevant that “No child § part,j pend, shall be committed or transferred to a institution or facility primarily other used for the of sentences execution persons of convicted of a crime.” Special Appeals up stating: Court of summed it all evident, think, 'important
“It we that an purpose legislative juvenile revision of tie juvenile code was to insulate certain forms of consequences misconduct from the of adjudication delinquency of as described in Gault. category CINS; The creation of the reflects design legislature studied to insure that guilty treatment of children of misconduct peculiarly reflecting propensities susceptibilities youth, acquire will none of the institutional, quasi-penal features treatment Gault’s view had been the main difference theory practice between and the of'the system. App. court . . .” 20 Md. at 653. 'I Thus, go it “decline further and hold that [d] . proceeding upon petition requires a CINS due process permitted, grounds,
the child be Fifth Amendment testify.” have relevant evidence excluded and.to refuse to Id . at 654. appellee Special Appeals 8. Both have noted that in the recodification, prohibition against “in a 3-832 added a confinement § juvenile training any categories except school or similar institution” for all effective, however, May 1973. delinquency. This was not *10 however, necessary, to decide affirm, finding it We shall against privilege Amendment only the Fifth that proceeding. Because inapplicable to this is self-incrimination warnings and Miranda questions of hold, related so we holding. “The that within are subsumed voluntariness course, is, related to privilege self-incrimination necessary to assure that safeguards question of trustworthy, reasonably that are or confessions admissions coercion, are or but fruits of fear they not the mere are supra, Gault, re 387 U. In expressions of the truth.” reliable 87 S. at S. at Ct. Gault, pause we impetus from derives its this case
Since relevant facts on which a careful examination precipitated the which The conduct is bottomed. decision remarks” of “lewd or indecent there consisted action the female during telephone call allegedly made consequence, was complainant. As a Gault be, judge juvenile court being, found and was “delinquent child.” Maryland Code, its not unlike the Arizona Juvenile
Under
“delinquent
includes
counterpart,
child”
the definition of a
state . . . .” The Arizona
violated a law of the
one “who has
presence
provided
person who ‘in the
“that a
Criminal Code
vulgar,
hearing
any
. . . uses
abusive
woman or child
or
.’ The
language,
guilty of misdemeanor. . .
obscene
is
or
Code,
apply to
penalty specified in the Criminal
which would
adult,
$50,
imprisonment
more than
or
for not
is
to$5
Gault,
8-9,
Although disagreement existed over some being hearing, there no transpired juvenile court at the apparent transcript recording proceedings, it of those alleged made predicated Gault on admissions juvenile court questions propounded response to complainant appear, judge. Since the did not adjudication delinquency appears solely to have rested parents Neither nor his those admissions. Gault were required testify not advised that he was or make a statement, incriminating might or that an statement result already “delinquent.” as a As his commitment we have intimated, represented was not Gault counsel. Gault, totality did deal with not state; indeed,
relationship and the it between *11 process applicable not to did even consider the entire juvenile “delinquents.” problems presented only
“. . . to We consider the by by proceedings These the us this case. relate to which determination is made as to whether a a juvenile ‘delinquent’ alleged a result is a as of part, consequence his with the that misconduct on may he As be committed to a state institution. proceedings, appears to be these there little current proposition that the Process dissent from Due 13, play. role to . .” S. 87 S. Clause has a . 387 U. at Ct. at 1436. self-incrimination, again
Turning
the issue of
the Court
only
emphasized
it was
.
with a
that
“. .
concerned
‘delinquent’
proceeding to determine whether a minor is a
may
in
and which
result
commitment to a state institution.”
emphasis
44,
This
703
Gault, however,
is
test enunciated
Maryland. addition,
“delinquency” must be such
In
two-pronged.
to state institution.
commitment
result
that it
confirmed,
think, by
we
is
must be so read
That Gault
panoply
Supreme
To
subsequent
Court.
decisions
safeguards
Gault has
extended
of constitutional
proof beyond
requirement of
subsequently been added
Winship,
358, 90
doubt,
re
397
S.
S. Ct.
In
U.
reasonable
Winship
in In re
(1970).“The Court held
Labels are unimportant in terms of the second “prong,” confinement in a state As the Court institution. d: sai boy
“. . . A
is
boy
is
misconduct.
committed to an
institution where he
liberty
restrained
years.
for
It
is of no
—
consequence
constitutional
and of
limited
—
practical meaning
that the institution to which
he is committed is called an
School. The
Industrial
fact of
that,
the matter
euphemistic
is
however
title,
‘receiving
home’ or an ‘industrial school’ for
juveniles is an institution of confinement in which
the child is
greater
incarcerated for a
or lesser time.
His world
building
becomes ‘a
with whitewashed
walls, regimented routine and institutional hours
. . . .’9 Instead of mother and father and sisters
and brothers
classmates,
and friends and
his world
peopled by guards,
is
custodians,
employees,
state
‘delinquents’
confined with him
anything
for
waywardness
rape
from
and homicide.” In re
Gault, supra,
387 S. at
U.
87 S.
atCt.
1443.
proceeding
“A
where the issue is whether the child will be
of;
‘delinquent’
subjected
found to be
to the loss
his
liberty
years
comparable
in seriousness to a felony
prosecution.”
at
387 U. S.
federal constitutional proceedings, specifically including criminal privilege self-incrimination, applicable be made tat adjudicatory stage juvenile proceedings of those which *13 charged act would constitute a crime if committed an 523, 599, 616, Appeal, Quoting A. 2d 530 379 Pa. 109 9. from Holmes’ (1954) J., (Musmanno, dissenting). 705 may of child to a in confinement the and which result adult state institution. question of have considered the state courts that
Other application Gault proceedings invoke an should which example, conclusions. For rights have reached similar Maryland’s, statutory quite similar to scheme California’s however, being delinquent and apparent difference, an under may to institutions be sent the same CINS children state, “[j]uveniles entitled In that are California Code.10 Rights Bill protection the fundamental of to other proceedings result in confinement or sanctions, proceedings state these whether labels (citations omitted).” Superior M. v. Court ‘criminal’ or ‘civil.’ County, 370, 375, Rptr. 752, 756, Shasta 4 93 Cal. Cal. 3d of 482 (1971). P. 2d 664 consistently held that CINS courts have The California 11 delinquent guarantees the same are entitled to children they an act which would be are when children Superior adult, M. v. if an a crime committed (“. Rptr. juveniles, supra, at 758 . . County, 93 Cal. Shasta constitutionally the Due adults, entitled under like are at the proof a reasonable doubt Process Clause they charged with which stage are an act adjudicatory when adult.”);12In re a crime would constitute (“Since Rptr. (1972) 708 D, Cal.App.3d 100 Cal. 23 wrongdoing 600] minors are not accused [under § hearings pursuant applicable mandates constitutional and 602 . . . have no Institutions Code 601 Welfare and §§ R, Cal.App.2d 749, Rptr. 79 relevancy.”); re Cal. 274 allegation however, (1969) proof (“Where, 250 minor,. minor solely upon . . the the admissions rests provides for three The Welfare and Institutions Code 10. California CINS), (essentially child), categories: (dependent neglected 601 § 600 § children). (delinquent and § California; is not term CINS used instead the reference is to § 601 children. 12. Section 702.5 of the California Welfare Institutions Code right specifically gives children, self-incrimination § § statutory provision has but this not been rationale of these cases.
706 may rightly proof contend that allegations of such of the felony commission of a must be under the same standards as petition if the were under 602 [delinquency] . . In re § Rambeau, Cal.App.2d 1, 266 72 Rptr. 171, (1968) Cal. 176-77 (juvenile protected against self-incrimination “where the finding essential felony of the court is that a . . . has been committed.”) fallacy H,
Illustrative of the label is In re Cal.App.3d 5 Rptr. (1970). 85 case, Cal. 359 In juvenile a was [delinquency] under 602 with assault with a § deadly weapon manslaughter. The sole evidence him was his confession that he struck the child whom he babysitting. suppressed, The confession was having as illegally obtained, been petition and the was dismissed. The judge, motion, however, trial on his own promptly amended petition charge juvenile being danger with “in leading idle, dissolute, lewd or immoral life” under 601 § [CINS]; and then admitted the confession and sustained the petition, since the defendant longer was no charged with “delinquency.” Appeal reversed, holding: Court though petition
“Even the amended was filed [CINS], under rightly may section 601 the minor proof allegation demand that commission must meet the same of felonies petition standards if brought under [delinquency], namely, preponderance section 602 legally of evidence admissible the trial of criminal ‘Thus, cases. . . . illegally confession upon support obtained cannot be relied finding that a minor (citations committed a crime.’ omitted).” Rptr. (emphasis Cal. at 366. original). Florida, the reasonable applied doubt standard is in the
adjudicatory phase
delinquency
of a
proceeding where the
delinquency
act of
charged is one which would constitute a
crime if
V.D.B.,
an adult. State v.
We turn then Ann The state contends rights apply not because the Gault do CINS that proceedings and those significant differences between these dissimilarities: CINS delinquency cases. It cites designed or may in not confined institutions children be children; delinquent CINS operated for the benefit detention;13 placed in and CINS children not be children Also, in the may not waived to adult criminal courts. little teaching that are of the Gault labels teeth of argues the label consequence, the nevertheless that State “delinquent.” significantly stigma than “CINS” bears less having placed foster Finally, that, been in a the State claims home, to “state institution” appellant was not committed homes are not that shelter care and foster because category.
Understandably enough, appellant maintains “CINS” that children, though differently in respects, treated certain are (1974), Article, Proceedings 13. Code 3-823 of the Courts and Judicial § January 1, observed, provides; already we effective is the that in a so but as have it statutory May applicable governs this case. At scheme time, permitted children, Art. detention but not 70-12 of CINS § jail facility charged used for with a or other detention of adults adjudicated alleged delinquent. More- criminal offense and children to be over, statutory exceptions. prohibition even riddled this with “delinquent” the same as purpose children for the applying rights. Gault emphasizes She that at the time of hearing, conceivably she could have been confined with children; delinquent that she could have been committed to a institution,” compelled “state and thus to leave her home resulting with a freedom; curtailment of her that she is now step incarceration; one closer to charged and that she was violating a criminal Although statute. there is much to arguments, commend these we need not decide whether the prong i.e., test, potential second of the Gault confinement of institution, the child to a application state mandated an privilege against self-incrimination in this case. We because, any reach event, this conclusion we think that appellant proceeding was not in this with an act which would constitute a crime an adult. earlier, petition As we noted February 1, filed allege appellant did “delinquent was both a child” and a supervision.” “child need of assigned The reasons allegations consumption these were narcotics, the acts *16 perversion of sexual practiced upon her, intercourse and and ungovernability. But, in the context of all the material during events which ensued period, the critical since she was, fact, victim, in charge the “delinquency” in the petition regarded simply must be unexplained as an anomaly. testimony describing the circumstances at the
hospital police clearly depicts and the station girls as by victims of “sex” crimes committed the adults. That this position was the is merely by borne out not subsequent testimony, their by but also their immediate application listing for adult arrest girls warrants as victims; overnight detention purpose for “protective custody”; and the total suggested absence of criminality part girls any police on the records. Department
Even within the Services, Juvenile “delinquency” charge out-of-step every with other official entry pertaining girls. complaint Its own record or form, completed day petition, the same as the lists “child supervision” single description.” as “offense need of Again, day, February 1, on that same the Master referred to group adults,” girls having “been victimized any Supervision” found them to be “in Need of and omitted “delinquency.” Nothing in their four-week mention of Maryland psychiatric commitment to Children’s Center evaluation was inconsistent with this official attitude. Nor reports do the recommendations of that institution contrary reflect a view. sum, delinquency “charge” with the elimination of the February 1, alleged the Master on the claims of conduct, premised,
“criminal” on which it was vanished with single appellant allegation it. What remained was ungovernable parent, .“. . is the control of her deports danger herself in as to to herself such manner and others and is in need of From that care treatment.” forward, least, appellant charged time in this was not proceeding any with acts which would constitute a crime by an adult. necessary said, rest
As we have we do not find it our prong by Gault, decision on the second of the test laid down pertaining possible confinement a “state institution.” It appellant is sufficient to hold that since was not which, case, an act the circumstances of this would adult, privilege constitute a crime if committed applicable self-incrimination is not to these proceedings.
Judgment affirmed; appellant pay costs. Eldridge, J., dissenting: *17 majority’s
The
decision in this case cannot be reconciled
Gault,
1,
1428,
with In re
387 U. S.
87 S. Ct.
710
528,
1976,
403
S.
91
(1971);
U.
S. Ct.
Gault, subsequent Supreme cases, setting and the two-pronged determining forth a test for whether the Fifth privilege against appli- is Amendment self-incrimination juvenile (1) proceeding. cable to a The test is: whether charged “is with an act that would constitute a by adult,” Winship, supra, crime if committed an In re 397 359; City York, supra, Ivan V.v. U. S. at New S. at U. 203; (2) “subjected and whether the child be to the loss liberty,” proceedings “may of his or whether the result institution,” Gault, supra, commitment to a state S.U. 36, 44, Moreover, majority opinion as the in this case seems initially acknowledge, controlling labels are not as to aspect either of the test. It does not matter whether the proceedings “delinquency” of the is name or “child need of supervision” (“CINS”), liberty may or whether the loss of commitment to an “industrial “receiving school” or a Gault, supra, home.” S. at U. n. 27. The child’s protection privilege against entitlement depends upon self-in crimination the substance of the matter, namely whether he or she with an act that would be a crime an adult and whether liberty. proceedings deprivation could result in a Despite apparent recognition principles by an of these majority case, specifically recognition this controlling, majority opinion goes labels are not on to make the labels “victim” and “CINS” determinative. Cindy Although petitioner Spalding the acts Ann which proceedings, subsequent deprivation caused these and her liberty, would have been criminal acts if committed adult, majority labels her the “victim” of “sex crimes.” upon label, charge Based this and the fact that the and title proceedings were later limited to a “child in need of supervision,” majority petitioner denies *18 upholds herself and right incriminate not to constitutional her to take the compelling court of the trial the action testify against herself. witness stand and the fact that about question in this case can be no There petitioner, and one charges against original basis for adjudication of a “child grounds the ultimate for acts which supervision,” was her commission need of an adult. crimes committed have constituted would February 1, court, filed petition to the delinquent being a charged with Spalding was Cindy Ann specific only supervision. The in need of and a child child charges were petition for the alleged in the as a basis facts prohibited controlled “respondent has consumed that intercourse and engaged sexual in acts of narcotics of male and an unknown number perversion with sexual year.” It was one period of more than for a female adults being supporting facts any alleged, additional without also “ungovernable and Spalding was forth, Cindy Ann that set danger to parent” and was “a control others.” herself and February 1, 1973, Kahl, master, Mr. juvenile court Cindy Order,” which recited
signed a “Commitment in need of adjudged a child been Spalding Ann has custody of the her to the supervision and which The “Memorandum” Department Services. of Juvenile stated, “Police accompanied that order Kahl which Master young girls have been investigation these indicates area and in the Dundalk group of adults victimized drug purposes of sexual abuse elsewhere, fact that the a reference to the experimentation.” Other than drug treatment, sexual conduct and girls needed medical only set forth facts or basis abuse constituted order. for the commitment memorandum 1973, petitioner was returned from On March was committed Maryland Center and Children’s Department Services Juvenile custody of Juvenile memorandum In Master Peach’s Master Peach. committing petitioner, he referred accompanying the order orgies” “participation in unbelievable sex and the use to her also referred to the fact that drugs. While the master attending not been school and had been petitioner had *19 afternoon, sleeping in the until two or three o’clock habit of large in no that the behavior which furnished there is doubt engaging part commitment order was in the basis for the orgies” drug “sex and abuse. testimony the itself, offered trial court
At the in need of charge of “child prosecution to sustain narcotics, girls’ of largely use supervision” related to mother, and to the “sex having “drugged” her petitioner’s end of' judge, opinion in delivered at the orgies.” his The trial to be adjudicating petitioner and co-defendant the trial that the supervision,” found as a fact in need of “children and sexual activities” girls associated immoral “have been “drugs nature.” taking of a narcotic “indulged” in the of have upon weight judge placed some also While the trial school, question is no but there petitioner’s failure to attend drug furnished abuse activities the sexual and judge’s adjudication and principal basis for factual order. commitment prohibited narcotics” and course, using
Of “controlled perversion,” to use the . . . sexual engaging in “acts of Cindy Spalding, Ann are petition against language of the (1971 Repl. Vol., Maryland Maryland. Code serious crimes 554, punishes “unnatural or Supp.), Art. 1974 Cum. § petitioner type which perverted practices” of the sexual committed, by of ten a maximum sentence alleged to have seq., et years penitentiary. Art. § law, sets forth various Dangerous “Controlled Substances” drugs. prohibited narcotic penalties for the use criminal . clearly “charged with . . that would act[s] Petitioner adult,” re . . . constitute crime[s] City 359; Ivan V. v. New Winship, supra, S. at 397 U. supra, acts furnished a York, and these U.S. adjudication ultimate “CINS” for the large part the basis and commitment. a “marked there is opinion states majority “delinquent” classification between
contrast” supervision” in need classification.1 or “child “CINS” illustrates, However, conduct this case criminal adjudication. For “CINS” the factual basis for the furnish “habitually who are example, includes children “CINS” parents’] disobedient, ungovernable, and [their (2) (1974), (f) of the Courts and Judicial 3-801 control.” Code § characteristics, as Proceedings The evidence of such Article. case, may acts. also includes in this be criminal “CINS” injure endanger “[d]eports so as to or himself child who and Judicial others,” (f) (3) of the Courts or 3-801 himself § course, Proceedings a child who commits criminal Article. Of else, drugs “drugging” someone using acts such as narcotic endanger” injure or herself or deporting herself “so as to be, under the why should not This is “labels” others. not, controlling. Supreme are Court’s decisions opinion, the other majority While not dealt *20 inmet test was also requirement of the Gault “prong” or to a “foster petitioner in fact committed was this case. While living period “institution,” for a forced instead of an home” away own home from one’s years in “foster home” and a Gault, supra, liberty,” 387 U. S. family his is a “loss of and home, a foster Moreover, commitment to at 36. even if parents, would not be against child and her the will of the test, Gault requirement of the to meet the second deemed possibility petitioner subjected to the of commitment was Supp.), Repl. Vol., Art. (1972 1974Cum. an institution. Code judge to 52A, (c), specifically court 5 authorizes § private any public institution child “to or commit “CINS” authority, pertinent upon limitations this . . . .” As to trial, (1966 petitioner’s time of Code statute effect at the 70-19, Supp.), 26, Repl. Vol., Art. authorized 1972 Cum. § provided in an institution confinement of a “CINS” child designed operated the institution were not that exceptions even to delinquent There were benefit of children. Appeals opinion Special case Actually, this as the was points out, in the “CINS” definition what is now contained much of “delinquent” formerly Matter of Carter child. in the definition of a included 633, 650, (1974). App. Spalding, A. 2d 269 Md. 318 20 714 proviso. present statute, (1974), (c)
that The Code 3-832 § Proceedings Article, the Courts and Judicial adds the authority further limitation to the to commit “CINS” institutions, requiring may children to that such institutions juvenile training something not be schools or similar to juvenile training upon schools. Limitations the nature of the may to which children institutions “CINS” do Maryland change law, not fact under child adjudicated supervision be committed in need of to be institution of confinement in which the child is to “an greater Gault, supra, incarcerated for a or lesser time.” 387 U. S. at 27. two-pronged test of Gault was therefore met this with acts that would be crimes
case. Petitioner by adults, petitioner subjected to the if committed prospect liberty in an institution. of a loss of or confinement Gault, privilege Consequently, under the Fifth Amendment fully applicable to this self-incrimination was proceeding. petitioner’s that the no doubt this case
There can be
were the
rights were violated. At no time
Fifth Amendment
Arizona,
436,
v.
S.
warnings required Miranda
384 U.
reh. den.
1602,
694,
974,
S. Ct.
L.Ed.2d
10 A.L.R.3d
(1966),given. Both the
U. S.
87 S. Ct.
Finally, from the rights warnings, petitioner’s Fifth Amendment were compelled, over her when at trial she violated testify attorney’s objection, to the witness take stand trial, prosecution At after several herself. testified, following place: took witnesses attorney]: [prosecuting NEWELL I call “MR.
Cindy Spalding Ann to the stand. [petitioner’s attorney]: Objection. “MR. MEOLA — “THE COURT: Well my testify I witness
“MR. MEOLA: instruct not to —may be at all. She stand, Cindy, All right,
“THE COURT: take the you’ll step up right, All stand. be sworn first.” extensively judge was then the trial
Petitioner examined attorney. Objections prosecuting made ignored attorney incriminating questions were language “No Fifth Amendment is that overruled. person any compelled . . . shall be criminal case *22 . . . No more clear-cut violation
witness himself imagined what provision be than occurred could petitioner’s trial. opinion significant majority in this have case could Cindy Spalding is Ann labelled a
consequences. Because “victim,” proceedings are and because called “CINS” “delinquent,” is those she deemed not entitled to instead rights Supreme which the held are constitutional has applicable juvenile However, proceedings. petitioner “victim,” anytime juvenile engaged in is criminal juvenile activity adults, could be said to be by teenager might A be an into “victim.” enticed adult adult, engaging in a series of armed robberiés with the Turning viewed “victim.” could be as a name of proceeding, may since criminal acts be the basis for “CINS” adjudication proceedings, and an that a child in need since supervision lead confinement in institution ishe delinquent, long period adjudication as an virtually juvenile proceedings all could be labelled “CINS” significant consequences. authorties without Thus right labels, i.e., “CINS,” using “victim” and by-pass will authorities able laid requirements Supreme down Court Gault.