Confessions made by
juveniles in criminal matters cannot be taken at face value. Extreme care must be
taken to evaluate the nature of the confession and whether it was made
knowingly and voluntarily. This issue was at the heart of
In re D.F., 2015-Ohio-2922 in which the defendant appealed a decision handed down
by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations,
Juvenile Branch.
A kid was walking down the street in Columbus, Ohio when he was jumped
by a group of teenagers. They beat him up and asked for his possessions.
Instead of complying, the kid ran to a nearby gas station where he got
the attention of a city police officer.
Later that day, Columbus police detained a teenager that fit the description
of one of the assailants – the defendant-appellant. Two complaints
were filed against the defendant in connection with the incident, charging
the 13-year-old with delinquency arising out of second degree robbery,
third degree robbery, kidnapping, aggravated riot, and felonious assault.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession, the judge denied
the motion, and the defendant objected to the judge’s denial. The
defendant’s objection was overruled, and the court found that the
teenager was guilty of the charges against him.
On appeal, the defendant claimed that the lower court was in error to deny
him a motion to suppress his confession, based on protections granted
in the fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well
as the corresponding Article 1, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. According
to the defendant, he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his
Miranda rights.
The state attempted to contest the defendant-appellant’s appeal,
claiming that if the defendant disagreed, he should have not only objected
to the judge’s initial denial of the motion to suppress, but also
the final judgment.
In response, the appeals court said that the state’s claim had no
merit. Citing
State v. French, the appeals court explained that it is unnecessary for a defendant to
renew an objection once a decision regarding a motion to suppress has
been entered.
A Look at the 5th and 14th Amendments
The defendant-appellant appealed on the grounds that the juvenile court
judge erroneously denied his motion to suppress confession, based on protections
found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment offers the protection of freedom from self-incrimination,
which applies equally to juveniles as it does to adults.
In cases involving juvenile offenders, extreme caution must be taken to
ensure that testimony is obtained voluntarily and not arising out of coercion
or confusion. The defendant-appellant in this case may have waived his
Miranda rights to give a confession, but courts still have to consider whether
confessions from juveniles are truly made voluntarily and with understanding.
When a court is considering a defendant’s confession, they cannot
look at the confession in isolation, but rather they must consider the
circumstances. For example, were any coercive or deceptive police tactics
used to obtain the confession? Were the defendant’s parents present
at the time of the confession? What was the defendant’s mental/physical
state at the time of the interrogation?
If your juvenile son or daughter has been accused of a crime, we invite you to
contact Koffel Brininger Nesbitt in Columbus, Ohio today to ensure their rights are protected.
Call or text 614-884-1100 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
