1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: O ct ob er 15, 201 5 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4995 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 7 v. 8 DeANGEL O M., 9 Ch ild -R es pond en t.

10 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 11 D re w D . Ta tu m , D ist ri ctJu dg e

12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Pe tition er

16 Robert E . T angora, L .L .C. 17 Robert E . T angora 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} D eA nge lo M

. ( Ch ild ) w as thi rt ee n y ears a nd e igh t day s ol d w he n d ur ing a 4 custodi al interrogation by three lawenforce m ent officer s, he m ade incu l p at ory 5 sta te m en ts r eg ar din g abur glary , w hic h c onne ct ed Ch ild to a m ur de r. H ad

Ch ild m ad e 6 his state m en ts n ine day s e ar lie r, his stat em en ts w oul d no t have be ena dm iss ibl e 7 again st h i m i n a ny d e l i nque nc y

p r oc e e di ng s. N M S A 1 97 8, § 3 2A

- 2- 14 ( F ) ( 2009). 8 H ad Ch ild be enf if te eny ears old

a t the ti m e of

his state m en t, his state m en t w oul d be 9 ad m i s s i b l e i f t h e p ro s ec u t i o n p ro v ed b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at Ch i l d ’s 10 sta te m en t wa s e lic ite d a ft er his kno w ing , int el lig en t and v olu ntary w ai ve r of

his 11 co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts. S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ), ( E ); State v . Ma rtinez , 12 1999 -N MSC- 018, ¶ 14, 127 N. M. 207, 979 P. 2d 71 8. H owever , bec ause Child was 1 3 t h i rt e e n ye a r s o l da n dh i s s t a t e men twa s g i v e n t o ap e r s o ni n ap o s i t i o n o f au t h o r i t y, 14 the re is a re but ta

ble pr es um

pti on tha t hi s sta te m en t i s in adm iss ab le in an y 15 delinqu ency

proceedings. Se ction 32 A- 2-14(F). 16 { 2} H owdoe s th e pr ose cu tio n r eb ut this pr es um pti on? T he Co urt of Appe al s he ld 17 that the prosecution m ust prov e by

clear and convin cing ev idence, through expert 18 t e s t im ony , that “ Ch ild ha d th e m at

ur ity a nd i nte lli ge nc e of

a n a ve ra ge f

if te en -y ear- old 19 child to understand his situatio n and the rights he po ssessed.” St at e v. DeAn ge lo M. ,2

1 2015 -N MC A -0 19, ¶

¶ 21, 23- 24, 344 P. 3d 1019. T he Co urt of Appe al s r ev er se d th e 2 district court’ s denial of the m otion to supp ress b ecause the prosecution did no t m eet 3 th is bu rd en an d re m an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l. Se e id. ¶¶ 2 3 , 2 4 . We g ra n t ed t h e S t at e’s 4 pe ti ti on forcert io rari , St at e v. DeAn ge lo M. , 201 5- N MC E RT -0 02, to co nsi de r the 5 fo llo w ing iss ue s: (1 ) w he the r the Co ur t of Appe al s e rr ed by hol din g th at

the S ta te 6 can on ly

reb ut the pr es um

pti on o f ina dm iss ibi lity

by sho w ing tha t the thi rt ee n- or 7 fo urte en -y ear-ol d chil d ha s th e int el le ct ua l c ap ac ity

of a n a ve ra ge f

if te en -y ear- old ; 8 (2 ) w he the r the Co urt of Appea ls e rr ed

by hol din g th at

the S ta te m

ust r eb ut the 9 p r e s u mp t i o n o f

i n a d mi s s i b i l i t y b y c l e a r

a n dc o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e r a t h e r t h a n b y a 10 pr ep onde ranc e of

th e ev ide nc e; a nd ( 3) w he the r the Co urt of Appe al s e rr ed

by 11 hol din g t hat the S ta te c anonl y r eb ut the pr es um

pti on o f ina dm iss ibi lity

thr ough 1 2 e x p e rtt e s t i mo n y. 13 { 3} W e hol d th at

S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( F) r eq uir es the St at e to pr ove by c le ar a nd 14 co nvi nc ing ev idenc e tha t a t the ti m e a thi rt ee n- or f ourte en -y ear- old

c hil d m ak es a 1 5 sta te m e n t , c o n f

e s s i o n , o r a d m i s s i o n t o a p e r s o n i n a p o s i t i o n o f au t h o r i t y , t h e ch ild 1 6 ( 1 ) wa s wa rn e do f

h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n ds t a tu t o ry ri g h t s , a n d( 2 ) kn o w i n g l y, 17 int el lig en tly , a nd v olu ntari ly w ai ve d e ac h r igh t. T o pr ove the se co nd e le m en t, the 18 re co rd ing of the cu sto dia l inte rr oga tio n whi chr es ult ed in the state m en t, c onf

es sio n,3

1 or a dm iss ionm

ust pr ove c le ar ly

a nd c onvi nc ing ly

that the c hil d’ s answ er

to ope n2 en de d qu es tio ns d em onstrate d th at the thi rt ee n- or

f ourte en -y ear- old ch ild

ha s th e 3 m at ur ity to unde rs tand e ac h of

his or he r co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts and the 4 fo rc e of

w ill to ins ist

on e xe rc isi ng those r igh ts. E xpe rt te sti m ony

m ay a ssi st the f

ac t5 fi nde r in unde rs tandi ng the e vid en ce or de te rm ini ng the f

ac ts n ec es sary

to sa tis fy thi s 6 requirem ent, but it is not essent ial. W e conclude that the evidence in this case does 7 not pr ove tha t Ch ild know ing ly , int el lig en tly , an d vol unt ar ily w ai ve d ea chr igh t. 8 T he re fo re , his state m en t sh oul d be sup pr es se d. 9 I. Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( F ) re qu ir es t he S ta te t o r eb utt he p re su m pt ion of 10 inadm issibility by clear and convinc ing evidenc e 11 { 4} T he F if

th A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n pr ovi de s in div idu al s 12 a co nst itu tio na l r igh t a ga ins t se lf -i nc ri m ina tio n by pr ovi din g th at a n in div idu al sha ll 13 no t “ be co m

pe ll edin an y

cri m in al cas e to be a wit ne ss ag ai ns t h im se lf [ orhe rs el f].” 14 U

. S. Co ns t. am en d. V

. I n M ira nda v. A riz ona , the U nited States Suprem e Court 15 articulated w arnings that law enforc em ent m ust give to a susp ect before the susp ect 16 can be subje ct ed t o a cus todial in terrogation without com prom ising his or her 17 privilege a gainst self- incrim ination

. 384 U .S

. 436, 479 (196 6). The C ourt explained 18 tha t: 19 Prior to any questio ning , the person m ust be warned that he [or she] has4

1 a ri ght

to re m ai n sile nt, tha t any

state m en t he [ or

she ] doe s m ak e m ay

be 2 use d a s e vid en ce a ga ins t hi m [o r he r] , an d tha t he [ or she ] ha s ar igh t t o 3 the pr es en ce of

a n a tto rn ey , e ith er

r et ai ne d or

appoi nte d. 4 Id

. at 444. “ A ft er suc h w ar nin gs h av e be engiv en , a nd s uc h op portun ity a ff or de d hi m 5 [or her] , the indiv idual m ay knowingl y and intellig ently

wa ive these rights and agree 6 to answer questions or m ake a statem ent.” Id

. at 4 7 9

. “ Once warnings h ave been 7 given, the subsequ ent procedure is clear

. If the individu al indicates in any m anner, 8 at a ny ti m e pr ior to or dur ing que sti oni ng, tha t he [or she ] w ish es to re m ai n sile nt, the 9 interrogation m

ust cease. ” Id

. a t 47 3- 74. 10 { 5} “ [W ] hil e the f

ed er al c onst itu tio np r o v i d e s a m ini m um le ve l of pr ote ct ionbe low 11 whi ch th e st at es m ay

no t d es cen d, sta te s rem ai n free t o p ro vi de gre at er p ro te ct io n.” 12 St at e v. J

a v i e r M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ 24, 131 N

. M. 1, 33 P

. 3d 1 ( al te ratio n in 13 or igi na l) (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ H en ce , it is com pl et ely 14 within the Legislature’ s authorityto provid e grea ter st at u t o ryprotection than 15 accorded under the fe deral Constitutio n.” Id

. T he N ew Me xic o L eg isl at ur e did j ust 16 tha t by

it s e na ctm en t of

the D el inque nc y A ct , N MS A 1978 , §§ 32A -2 -1 to -3 3( 1993 , 17 as am ended throug h 200 9). 18 { 6} T he D el inque nc y A ct pr ovi de s c hil dr enw ith“ gr ea te r pr ote ct ion s th antho se 1 9 co n s t i tu t i o n al l y af

fo rd ed [ t o ] adu l t s wi t h re g ar dt o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a ch i l d ’s5

1 statem ents or confessions .” State v. A dam J. , 200 3- N MC A -0 80, ¶ 3, 133 N

. M. 815 , 2 70 P

. 3d 8 05 ( ci tin g § 3 2A -2 -1 4( C) -( G ))

. R el ev an t to our inq uir y in thi s c as e, S ec tio n 3 32A -2 -1 4( F) pr ovi de s: 4 N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n y o t h e r p r o v i s i o n t o t h e c o n t r a ry , no 5 co nf

es sio ns, state m en ts o r adm iss ion s m ay be intro duc ed

a ga ins t a c hil d 6 under the age of thirteen y ears on the allegations of the petition

. Ther e 7 is a r eb utt ab le pr es um pti on tha t any

c onf es sio ns, state m en ts o r 8 adm iss ion s m ad e by a c hil d th irte enor

f ourte eny ears old

to a pe rs on i n 9 a positio n of authority are inadm issib le. 10 { 7} Wha t i s no t c le ar f ro m the te xt i s ho w the pr ose cu tio n is ex pe ct ed to r eb ut the 11 pr es um

pti on. Wha t is the pr ose cu tio n’ s bur de n of pr oof ? Wha t evi de nc e will 12 overcom e the presum ption ? This case r equires us to cons true Sec tion 3 2A-2-14(F)

. 13 “ Statutory

interpretation is a question of law , which we review de novo .” Sta te e x re l. 14 Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Dj ami la B. ( In re Ma hd

ji d B. ), 201 5 -N MSC1 5 0 0 3 , ¶ 1 2 , 34 2 P. 3 d 6 9 8 , 70 2 (i n t er n al qu o t at i o n m ar k s an d ci t at i o n o mi t t e d )

. “ We 16 lookfirst to t h e p l ai n language of the statute.” N.M . I ndus . E nergy Consumers v. 17 N.M . Pub. Regulation Comm ’n , 2007 -N MS C- 053, ¶ 20, 142 N

. M. 533 , 168 P

. 3d 1 05. 18 “ H ow ev er , w e loo k no t on ly to the langua ge use d inthe statut e, but a lso to the 19 purpos e to be achieved and the wr ong to be rem edied.” Dja mil a B. , 2015-NMS C20 003, ¶ 25 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ In doi ng so, w e ex am ine 21 the pla in l an gua ge of

the statut e as w el l a s th e co nte xt in wh ic h it w as pr om

ulg at ed ,6

1 inc lud ing the his tor

y of the statut e an d th e obj ec t and pur pose the L eg isl at

ur e soug ht 2 to a ccom

plish .” Sta te v. O

ffi ce of the P ub. D ef

. ex re l. M uqqd din , 201 2- N MS C- 029, 3 ¶ 13, 285 P. 3d 62 2 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 4 { 8} O ne of

the e xpr es s purp ose s of the D el inque nc y Act is “ to r em ove f ro m 5 ch ildre n c om

m itt ing de lin que nt a ct s the ad ult co nse que nc es of

c ri m ina l be ha vio r, but 6 to s til l hol d ch ildre n co m m itt ing de lin que nt ac ts ac co unt ab le fo r the ir a ct ion s to the 7 ex te nt o f the ch ild ’ s ag e, ed uc at ion , m en ta l an d phy sic al c ondi tio n, ba ck gr ound a nd 8 al l othe r re le va nt fa ct or s. ” Se ct ion 32A -2 -2 (A ). T his ex pr es s purp ose is co nsi ste nt 9 wit h t he ov erar ch in g l eg is la ti ve go al s o f th e Ch il dr en ’s Co de , NMSA 19 78 , §§ 32 A10 1 -1 to -24-5 (1993 , a s am ended throug h 200 9), which ensures that chil d re n ’s 11 co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts are r ec ogni ze d and e nf or ce d: 1 2 T he C h i l d r e n ’ s C o d e s h a l l b e i n t e r p r e t e d a n d c o n s t r

u edto 13 ef

fe ct ua te the f oll ow ing le gis la tiv e pur

pose s: 1 4 A

. f

i r s tt o p r o v i d e f

o r t h e c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n a n dw h o l e s o me 15 m en ta l and p hy sic al de ve lop m en t of c hil dr en co m in g wi thi n th e 16 pr ovi sio ns o f the Ch ildre n’ s C ode

. . . ; [ an d] 17 B. to pr ovi de j udi ci al an d oth er pr oc ed ur es thr ough w hic h th e 18 pr ovi sio ns o f the Ch ildre n’ s Cod e are exe cu te d and e nf or ce d and i n 19 w hic h th e pa rt ie s ar e as sur ed a fa ir he ar ing a nd the ir

c onst itu tio na l and 20 ot he r le ga l ri gh ts are re co gn iz edan d e nf or ced

. . . . 21 Section 32A-1-3(A )-( B).7

1 { 9} Prior to 1993 no confession, statem ents or ad m issio ns m ade b y a chil d und er 2 the age of fif

teen could be introd uced against the c hild. NMS A 1978, § 32-1-27(F) 3 (1992). Th e l egislative rationale for ca tegorically excluding such statem ents was 4 be ca use 5 [c] hildren of tender y ears lack the m aturity to und erstand constitu tional 6 rights and th e forc e o f will to assert th ose constit ution al rights. Children 7 are encouraged to respect and obey adu l t s and shou ld not be expected 8 t o a ss e rtt he i r

c on st i tut i on a l r i gh t s e ve n un de r t he m os tp e rfunctory 9 questio ning by

any adult, particularly

an adult of author i t y. By 10 pr ohi bit ing th e ad m iss ionof state m en ts m ad e by

c hil dr enund er

a ge 11 fi ft ee n, Se ct ion 32- 1- 27( F) en co ur ag es ch ildre n to f re el y c onve rs e w ith 12 ad

ult s w ith out

f ear tha t the ir

state m ents w ill be use d a ga ins t the m a t a 13 la te r da te

. I n c ontra st, an ad ult or a ch ild ove r ag e fi ft ee n is unl ike ly to 14 m ak e aninv olu ntary state m en t i n anon cu sto dia l, non co er ci ve 15 atm osph er e or

a ft er r ec ei vin g M

i r a n da warnings. The additio nal 16 protection that Section 32 -1-27(F) gr ants child re n under age fifte en 17 he lps to ba lanc e the se dif fe re nc es in soph ist ic at ion

. 18 St at e v. Jo na th an M. , 199 0- N MS C- 046, ¶ 8, 109 N

. M. 789 , 791 P

. 2d 6 4. 19 { 10} H ow ev er , in 1993 the L eg isl at ur e re vis ed

the Ch ildre n’ s C ode , a nd a lon g w ith 20 it re pla ce d S ec tio n 32-1 -2 7 wi th Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( F)

. R athe r than e xc lud ing f ro m 21 ev ide nc e al l st at em en ts m ad e by c hil dr enund er

f if te en , the L eg isl at

ur e de ci de d to 22 exclude from

evidence only

statem ents m ade by

children y oung er than thirteen y ears 23 ol d. See § 32A-2-14(F). T he Le gislature chose to treat thirteen- and fourteen-y ear24 old c hil dr endif

fe re ntl y than c hil dr en ol der than f ourte enor

y oung er than th irte en .8

1 Se e N MS A 197 8, § 32 A -2 -1 4( F) ( 1993 ); St at e v. Ja de G. , 200 7- N MS C- 010, ¶ 16, 2 141 N

. M. 2 84 , 1 54 P. 3d 6 59 ( “ T he f ac t tha t the L eg isl at

ur e dr ewadis tin ct ion 3 be twee n c hi ld ren [of

di ffer en t ag es ] de m on st rat es it s cl ear i nt en t t o t reat th e . . . 4 groups differ en t l y, and th e plain language of this s tatute explains th e nature of that 5 differe nce.” ). 6 { 11} By

categorizing children into d iffer ent age groups, the Le gislature 7 distin guish ed betwee n the diff er en t age groups’ intellectual and develop m ental 8 capacities to knowingly , intelli gently , and vo luntarily wa ive their M

ira nda a nd 9 st atut or y

rig ht s. See A dam J. , 200 3- N MC A -0 80, ¶ 20 ( A lari d, J. , spe ci al ly 10 co nc ur

ri ng)

. F or ex am

ple , al tho ugh Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4 pr ovi de s gr ea te r pr ote ct ion s 11 fo r al l ch ildre n th andoe s M ira nda , the L egislature treats children fif teen and older 12 as ha vin g th e int el le ct ua l and d ev el opm en ta l c ap ac ity of a dul ts t o w ai ve the ir 13 co ns ti tu ti on al an d s ta tu to ry rig ht s. Se e Jo n a t h a n M. , 1990-NMS C-046, ¶ 8 14 (explaining that like adults, chil d re n o v er f ifteen ar e unlikely

to m ake involu ntary 15 statem ents after M

ira nda warnings d ue to their higher level of soph istication). 16 { 12} O n the oppo sit e en d of the ag e gr oups ar e ch ildre n y oung er than thirte en . 17 U nli ke c hil dr enf

if te ena nd o lde r, the L eg isl at ur e pr ecl ude s th e intro duc tio n of 18 co nf es sio ns, state m en ts, or

a dm iss ion s a ga ins t a

c hil d un de r the a ge of

thi rt ee n onthe9

1 al le ga tio ns o f a de lin que nc y pe tit ion , r eg ar dle ss o f the c ont ex t i n w hic h or to whom 2 th e sta te m en ts w er e m ad e. S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( F) ; se e Ja de G. , 200 7- N MS C- 010, ¶ 16. 3 The L egislature has m ade th e p olicy decision that children y oung er than thirteen lack 4 the m at

ur ity to unde rs tand the ir

c onst itu ti on al a nd s ta tut or y r igh ts and the f

or ce of 5 w ill to as se rt

tho se r igh ts. A cc or din gly , Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( F) pr ovi de s no e xc ep tio ns 6 perm itting “ the adm issio n of statem ents m ade by children under thirteen.” Ja de G. , 7 2007 -N MS C- 010, ¶

16. 8 { 13} By

cre ating fundam entally

distin ct p ro t ec t ions for children fifteen and older 9 an d f or ch ildre n y oung er

than th irte en , the L eg isl at ur e int en de d to “ ‘ dr aw[ a] li ne 1 0 b et we en ch i l d re n wh o ar e to o you n g t o wa i v e th ei r r i g h t s an dt h o s e w h o ar e n o t .’ ” 11 Adam J. , 2003-NMC A- 080, ¶ 8 (citations om itted). The L egislature chose not to treat 12 thi rt ee n- a nd f

ourte en -y ear- old ch ildre n cat eg or ic al ly as be lon gin g at one e nd o r the 13 oth er of thi s c hil dhoo d de ve lop m en tal sp ect ru m . S om e m ay la ck the m at ur ity to 14 unde rs tand the ir

c onst itu tio na l and sta tut or y ri ght s and the fo rc e of w ill to as se rt tho se 15 ri ght s, a nd s om e m ay

not

. 16 { 14} T o a ddr es s th is unc er ta inty , und er

S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( F) a ny state m en t, 17 adm iss ion , or

c on fes sio n of

ac hil d th irte enor

f ourte eny ears old

is pr es um ed

to be 18 ina dm iss ibl e unl es s the S ta te r eb uts the pr es um pti on. T he S ta te ’ s burd enof pr oof is10

1 not defined in the statute; therefore, it is our responsi bil i ty to m ake that 2 de te rm in at io n. State v. V aldez( In re V aldez ), 197 5- N MS C- 050, ¶ 12, 88 N

. M. 338 , 3 540 P. 2d 8 18 ( ci tin g W oodb y v. Im migration Serv. , 385 U

. S. 276 , 284 ( 1966 ))

. T he 4 State argues that it shou ld only have to prove “ by a preponderance of

the evidence, 5 tha t [ Ch ild ] w as a dvi se d of [ his ] r igh ts and know ing ly , int el lig en tly , a nd v olu ntari ly 6 w ai ve d th ose r igh ts. ” T he S ta te m ai nta ins tha t i t c anr eb ut the pr es um pti on o f 7 ina dm iss ibi lity

w he n “ the dis tr ic t c ourt dete rm ine s th at the c hil d m ad e a know ing , 8 intellig ent, and voluntary wa iver of rights” by

utilizing the totality

of circ um stances 9 fa ct o rs l i s t ed u n d er Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 2 -1 4 (E ). If we we re t o ag re e wi t h t h e S t a t e’s 10 argum ent, w e w ould in essence be treatin g thirteen- and fourteen-y ear- old child ren 11 the sa m e as f

if te en -y ear- old

c hil dr en . W e con cl ude that the L eg isl at ur e did not int en d 12 thi s r es ult

. T he pur

pose of abur de n of

pr oof is to “ ‘ ins tr

uc t the f ac tf ind er c onc er nin g 13 the de gr ee of

c onf ide nc e our

soc ie ty thi nks he [ or

she ] sho uld

ha ve in the c or

re ctne ss 14 of f a c tua l c on c l us i on s f

or a part i c ul a r t y

pe of a dj ud i c a t i on. ’ ” A ddi ngt on v . T ex as , 15 441 U

. S. 418 , 423 ( 1979 ) (quot ing In re W ins hip , 397 U

. S. 358, 370 (1 970) ( H ar lan, 16 J., concurring)). T he legislative history of Section 32A-2-14(F) and the im portance 17 of pr ote ct ing c hil dr eny oung er than f if tee n y ears of

a ge f ro m unknow ing or 18 inv olu ntary

w ai ve rs of

the ir r igh ts l ea ds u s to c onc lud e tha t c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing11

1 ev ide nc e is the pr ope r bur de n of pr oof f or r eb utt ing the pr es um

pti on o f 2 in ad m is si bi li ty u nd er Se ct io n 3 2A- 2- 14 (F). DeAng el o M. , 201 5- N MC A -0 19, ¶ ¶ 14- 3 16. 4 II. To overcom e th e pr esump ti o n, the State m ust pr ove by clear and 5 convincing eviden ce that the thirteen - or fourt een- year-old child had th e 6 m aturity to unde rstand his or her constitut ional and statutory rights and 7 the force of w ill to invok e such rights 8 { 15} W e ne xt addre ss w ha t cle ar an d conv inc ing ev ide nc e m ust be intro duc ed

by the 9 St at e to r eb ut the pr es um pti on o f ina dm iss ibi lity

und er Sect io n 32 A -2 -1 4( F)

. T he 10 St at e m ai nta ins tha t e vid en ce r el at ing to the Sect ion32A -2 -1 4( E ) fa ct or s sh oul d 11 suf fi ce . S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( E ) pr ovi de s: 12 Inde te rm in in g whe the r the c hil d kn ow ing ly , int el lig en tly a nd 13 vol unt ar ily

w ai ve d th e ch ild ’ s r igh ts, the c ourt sh al l c onsi de r the 14 fo llo w ing f

ac tor s: 15 (1 ) the a ge a nd e duc at ionof the r es pond en t; 1 6 ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e r e s p o n d e n ti s i n c u s t o d y; 17 (3 ) the m an ne r in whic h th e re spon de nt w as a dvise d of the 18 re spon de nt’ s r igh ts; 19 (4) the length o f questioni ng and circum stance s u n d er w hich 20 the r es pond en t w as que sti one d; 21 (5) the conditi on of the quarters wher e the re spon dent was 22 be ing ke pt at the ti m e of be ing que sti one d;12

1 (6 ) the ti m e of day a nd the tr ea tm en t of t he res pond en t a t the 2 tim e of

be ing que sti one d; 3 (7 ) the m en ta l and p hy sic al c ondi tio n of the r es pond en t a t the 4 tim e of

be ing que sti one d; and 5 ( 8 ) w h e t h e r t h e r e s p o n d e n th a dt h e c o u n s e l o f a n a t t o rn e y, 6 fr ie nds or

r el at ive s a t the ti m e of

be ing que sti one d. 7 { 16} The Court of Appeals held generally that “ the state m ust present evidence as 8 to bot h the benchm ark to be rea ched and the qualities of the child that m eet it and that 9 the thirteen-y ear- old child poss essed personal faculties equ ivalent to what is re quired 10 to fin d a n abi li ty to wai ve rig ht s t ha t wou ld sat is fy an adul t s ta nd ardforwaiv er.” 11 D eA nge lo M. , 2015 -N MCA -019, ¶ 13. The Court of Appeals deter m ined that lay 12 w itn es se s la ck th e exp er tis e to d et er

m ine w he the r a thi rt ee n- or f ourte en -y ear- old 13 child has the intellectual charac teristics that would render him or h er the equal of an 14 average f

ifteen-y ear-old in u nderstandin g and appreciating the sig nificance of a 15 M ira nda waiv er. Se e id. Consequently , the C ourt of Appeals w ould require e xpert 16 te st im on y , alt ho ug h i t d id no t i de nt ify the type o f ex pe rti se req ui red

. Id

. ¶ ¶ 13- 15. 17 { 17} Although we do not agree entirely with the Court of Appeals, we conclude that 18 the L eg isl at

ur e int en de d adif

fe re nt ana ly sis by

dr aw ing adis tin ct ion be tw ee n f if te en 19 y ear- old

c hil dr ena nd thirte en - an d f ourte en -y ear- old

c hil dr en , a lth oughthe 2 0 Subse ct ion E f

a c t o r s a r e a l s o r e l e v a n t

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e m u s t f i r s t p r o v e by14 Se e als o Tho mas Gris so , In str um en ts f or A ssessi ng U

nde rstandi ng & 1 15 Appr ec iat ion of M

ira nda R igh ts (19 98 ); Th om as Gris so , J u v e n i l e s ’ C

a p a c i t ie s to 16 W aive Mi randaR igh ts: A n E m pir ic al A nal

ys is , 68 Cal. L. Rev. 1134 (1980); I. Bruce 17 Fru m ki n, et. al ., Th e G ris so Tests for A ssessi ng U nde rstandi ng a nd A

ppre ci ati on o

f 18 Mi randa W

arni ngs wi th a F

ore nsi c Sam

ple , 30 B eh av . S ci

. L

. 673 ( 2012 ). I n 20 12, 19 D r. T hom as G ri sso pub lis he d Th e M ira nda R igh ts C

om pre he nsi on I

nstrum en ts 20 ( MR CI ), w hic h pr ovi de s ins tr

um en ts tha t ha ve be enupd at ed sin ce the pub lic at ionof 21 his or igi na l In str um en ts f or A ssessi ng Und er

sta ndi ng & A

ppre ci ati on o

f M ira nda 22 R igh ts

. 13 1 cl ear an d c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e tha t at the tim e the thi rt ee n- or fo urte en -y ear- old c hil d 2 m ad e his or

he r sta te m en t t o ape rs on i n a p os it io n of auth or ity , the c hil d ha d th e 3 m at ur ity to unde rs tand h is o r he r co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts and the f

or ce of 4 w ill to as se rt

tho se ri ght s. I t i s no t ne ce ssary to pr ove that the c hil d ha d th e m at ur ity 5 an d in te lle ct

ua l c ap ac ity

of a n a ve ra ge f

if te en -y ear- ol d ch ild

. H owsuc h a 6 de te rm ina tio n c oul d be m ad e is n ot e vid en t f ro m the Co urt of

Appe al s’ opi nio n. 7 { 18} T he Co urt of Ap pe al s st at ed that e xpe rt

te sti m ony

w oul d be r equir ed

. 8 H ow ev er , Ch ild

did not intr oduc e ev ide nc e to the tr ia l c ourt t o e sta bli sh w ha t ki nd 9 of e xpe rt m igh t be able to de ri ve a n opi nio n ab out ch ildre n’ s ca pa ci ty to w ai ve the ir 10 M i r a n da and st at

uto ry w ar nin gs. I n hi s br ie f in c hie f Ch ild c ite d T hom as G ri sso , 11 A dol es ce nts ’ D ec isi on M ak ing : A D ev el opm en tal

P er spe ct iv e on C

on st it utional 12 Provisions in De linqu ency Cases , 32 N ew E ng. J. on Cr im

. & Ci v. Co nf ine m ent 3, 13 12 ( 2006 ) as a n e xa m ple of pot en tia lly

use fu l e xpe rt

te sti m ony . How ev er , w ith out

114

1 a rec or d t ha t es tabl is he s t he va li di ty andrel iabi li ty of th e ex pe rt’s m et ho do lo gy, w e 2 a r e u n ab l e t o mak e a n i n f o rmed d e c i s i o n ab o u t t h e u t i l i t y o f s u c h e x p e rtt e s t i mo n y. 3 T he und ev el ope d r ec or d be fo re thi s Co urt pr ev en ts u s f ro m c at eg or ic al ly

a ff irm ing 4 the Co urt of

Appeals ’ br oa d ho ldi ng, w hic h w oul d r eq uir e ex pe rt

te sti m ony

a nd 5 evaluations of the child, m ost lik ely by m ental health professio n al s, in all ca ses 6 inv olv ing state m en ts m ad e by thi rt ee n- or f ourte en -y ear- old

c hil dr ento pe rs ons in a 7 p o s i t i o n o f

au t h o r i t y. 8 { 19} Absent an evaluation by an expert, interrogators in a p ositio n of authority can 9 pr es er ve the e vid en ce ne ed ed

by the S ta te to re but

the pr es um

pti on o f ina dm iss ibi lity 10 for thirteen- and fourteen-y ear- old child ren u n der Se ction 32 A- 2-14(F). N MSA 11 1978 , S ection 29-1-16 (20 06) requires lawenforce m ent officer s, wi th lim ited 12 ex ce pti ons, to el ec tr oni ca lly vid eo a nd a

udi o r ec or d th ei r cu sto dia l i nte rro ga tio ns. 13 Se e, e . g. , Sta te v. Spr igg s- G ore , 2003 -N MC A -0 46, ¶¶ 14- 15, 133 N

. M. 479, 64 P

. 3d 14 506 (not ing th at the interrogating law enfor cem ent officer rec orded and transcribed 15 “ approxim ately

five and one-half hours of conversation w ith D efendant”). In order 16 to obtai n th e cl ear an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce ne ed ed to re but the pr es um

pti on o f 17 ina dm iss ibi lity , the int er ro ga tor w ho is in a posi tio n of au tho ri ty m ust fi rs t a de qua te ly 18 advise the thirteen- or fou rt een-y ear- old child of his or her M ira nda and statutory15

1 rights and th en invite the child to explai n, on the rec ord, his or her a ctual 2 co m pr eh en sio n and a

ppr ec ia tio n of

e ac h M ira nda w ar

nin g. T his c ou ld be don e by 3 ha vin g th e ch ild

e xpl ai n in hi s or he r ow n w or ds— w ith out sug ge sti ons by

the 4 int er ro gato r—wh at

e ac h of the r igh ts m eans t o th e ch ild

. A n e ff ec tiv e inquir

y int o 5 a thirteen- or fourteen-y ear- ol d c hi l d’ s a c t ua l c om pr e he nsion and appreciation of each 6 right und er M

ira nda r equir es m or e than si m ple “ y es ” an sw er s or

asig ne d M

ira nda 7 not if ic at ion an d cons en t for

m on the ch ild ’ s part, w he n the ch ild m ay or m ay not be 8 ab l e t o fu l l y p ro ce s s a f o rmal re ci t at i o n o f t h e f

o u r w ar n i n g s . It i s t h ro u g h t h e c h i l d ’s 9 ar tic ulati on of

his or he r unde rs tandi ng tha t a f ac t- fi nde r co uld

a sse ss whe the r the 10 ch ild appr ec ia te d the func tio n an d sig nif ic an ce of ea ch ri ght in the co nte xt o f not onl y 11 pol ic e que sti oni ng, but in fu tur e co urt pr oc ee din gs. A c ourt de ci din g a m oti on t o 12 supp ress pursuant to Section 32A-2-14(F) would be able to assess the child ’ s actual 13 understandi ng of the M ira nda rights and whether the child m ade a r ational ch o ice 14 ba se d onthe c hil d’ s a ppr ec ia tio n of

the c onse quence s of

his or he r de ci sio n f

ro m 15 evidence developed at the tim e o f hi s or h er interrogation

. Ultim ately , a district court 16 j udge sho uld supp re ss an y sta te m en t m ad e by athi rt ee n- or

f ourte en -y ear- old

c hil d 17 unless the j udge f

inds that the child c learly and convin cingly dem onstrated his or her 18 m at ur ity to unde rs tand his or

he r co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts and p oss es se d th e16

1 fo rc e of

w ill to as se rt

tho se r igh ts. 2 III . Th e age nt s f

ail ed t o p ro du ce su ff

ic ie nte vid en ce t o r eb utt he p re su m pt ion 3 { 20} Ch ild

w as bor n onJul y 15, 19 97. O n Ju ly

26, 201 0, the S ta te c ha rg ed Ch ild 4 wit h o ne co un t o f res id en ti al bu rg la ry co nt rary t o NM SA 19 78 , Sect io ns 30 -1 6- 3( A) 5 (1 963) a nd 3 2A -2 -3 (A ) (2 009) ; o ne co un t of t am pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce c ontrary to 6 N MS A 197 8, S ec tio ns 3 0- 22- 5 (2 003) an d 32A -2 -3 (A ); an d one c ount of larc en y of 7 over $250 (but not m ore than $500 ) contrar y to NMS A 1978, Se ctions 30 -1 6-1(C) 8 (2 0 0 6 ) a n d3 2 A- 2 -3 (A ). Ar o u n dn o o n o nJ u l y 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 , e i g h td ays af t erC h i l d ’s 9 thi rt ee nthbir

thd ay , A ge nt D an ie l B la ir tr an spor te d C hil d and C hil d’ s m oth er to the 10 Roosevelt Coun ty Law Enforce m ent Com plex to interrogate Child. Child’ s m other 11 w as pr es en t duri ng the e nti re int er ro ga tio n. 12 { 21} Agents Dan Aguilar and D aniel Blair, who are i nvestig ators with t he District 13 A tto rney ’s of

fi ce , a nd D et ec tiv e JohnMo ndr ag on, w ho i s ade te ct ive w iththe 14 Po rt al es P oli ce D ep ar tm en t, int erro ga te d C hil d. Whe n A ge nt B la ir be ga n a dvi sin g 15 Ch ild of his M ira nda ri g h t s , Ag en tBl ai r ap p ea re dt o ag re e w i t h t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 16 pr es um

pti on tha t a

thi rt ee n- y ear- old

c hil d do es not ha ve the m at ur ity to unde rs tand 17 his or her M

ira nda r igh ts whe n he state d “ [y ] ou h av e to b e advis ed of y our r igh ts 18 pur suant t o rul e 32 A- 2- 14 o f the Ch ildre n’ s C ode Ru le s of P ro ce dur e an d th e17

1 co nst itu tio n. Y ou p ro bably don ’ t unde rs tand tha t bec au se I don’ t unde rs tand part of 2 t ha tb ut

i t ’ s ar ul e t ha tw e g ot t ad o. O kay ?” 3 { 22} T he f

oll ow ing e xc ha nge oc curr ed be tw ee n A ge nt B la ir

a nd C hil d a s A ge nt 4 Bl ai r at te m

pte d to r ea d and e xpl ai n to Ch ild the r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt: 5 A ge nt Bl ai r: It te lls us— y ou ha ve the ri ght to re m ai n sil en t. Y ou 6 don’ t have a nythi ng— if y ou . . . y ou d o not have to 7 say a nythi ng if y ou do not w an t to. I’ ve be enup f or 8 a l i t t l e w h i l e s o I’m n o t re ad i n g p ro p er l y. Lik e I ’m 9 re ad ing a t a se co nd g rad e le ve l—

j ust te ll m e. Y ou 10 can pr oba bly r ea d be tte r. D o y ou u nde rs tand tha t? 11 Ch ild : K ind of

. Y eah. 12 A ge nt B la ir : Wha t do y ou thin k th at m eans? 13 Child: Don’ t talk on y our own behalf. 14 A ge nt B la ir : O r y ou d on’ t have to ta lk t o us if y ou don’ t want t o 15 an d y our m om w ill e xpl ai n th at

. 16 Agent Blair

initiallyand correc tly

invite d Ch i l d to explain in his own words w hat 17 Child un derstood the right to rem ain silent m eans rather than accept Child’ s unclear 18 re spon se of

“ K ind of

. Y eah. ” Appare ntl y dis sa tis fi ed w ith Ch ild ’ s expl an at ionof his 19 ri ght to re m ai n sil en t, A ge nt Bl ai r sim ply c or re ct ed Ch ild w ith out inv iti ng C hil d to 20 furth er

e xpl ai n hi s a ct

ua l c om pr eh en sio n and a

ppr ec ia tio n of

the r igh t f

or ase co nd 21 tim e. I t i s no t c le ar

f ro m thi s exc ha nge w he the r Ch ild f ull y c om pr eh en de d hi s r igh t18

1 to rem ain silent. A gent Blair also err oneous ly suggest ed to Child th at his m other 2 co uld c ouns el Ch ild

a s an e qui va le nt s ubst itu te to an at tor ne y . I n any

e ve nt, dur ing 3 the entire exchang e regarding Child’s right to rem ain silent, it wa s never developed 4 w he the r Child

w as able to use the inf

orm at ionpr ovi de d by

the w ar nin g, gr as p th e 5 signi ficance of his r ight to rem ain silent, and weigh his opti ons and th e consequences 6 of his de ci sio ns. 7 { 23} A ge nts Bl ai r an d A gui lar hur ri ed ly a nd e qui voc al ly

w ar ne d C hild of hi s 8 re m ai nin g r igh ts. 9 A ge nt B la ir : A nythi ng y ou say can be used a ga ins t y ou i n c ourt. 10 Okay on TVwhen they read these—they rea d them 11 to adults and that m eans that they ’ ve arr este d them 1 2 b u tt h at ’s n o th ap p en i n g h er e o k ay? Th at ’s , t h at ’s 13 why I didn’ t want to—uh —do y ou un derstand what 14 tha t m eans? O ka y , y ou c anta lk to y our pare nts , 15 y our guard ian, a nd an attor ne y . Y ou g ot y our 16 pa re nt/ guard ian r igh t he re w ith y ou u m . [ Y ] ou h av e 17 the r igh t t o have y ou [ sic ] pare nt/ guard ian pare nt 18 pr es en t duri ng any que sti oni ng. I f y ou can n ot 19 af fo rd alaw y er , one m ay be appoi nte d f or y ou 20 be fo re an y qu es ti on in g. Th es e are th e on es on TV. 21 U m , if y ou d ec ide to an sw er que sti ons um , w ith out 22 ana tto rn ey , y ou can—y ou s til l have the r igh t t o st op 23 an sw er ing que sti ons an ytim e. Y ou h av e the r igh t t o 24 stop ans we ring questi ons any tim e ti ll y ou talk to an 25 at tor ne y . N owy ou u nde rs tand wha t I j ust sa id? 2 6 C h i l d : N o tr e a l l y.19

1 A ge nt B la ir : Y ou d idn ’ t un de rs tand those ? Whic h on es ? 2 Ch ild : —I thi nk I und er stand tha t y ou c anta lk t o th e 3 Judg e— no, y ou can ta lk w ith out

a n a tto rn ey . A nd 4 the n y ou c ansto p if it ’ s j ust lik e—

too ge tti ng o ut o f 5 ha nd. Y ou c ansto p. 6 Agent Blair : —You’ re r ight o n the— 7 8 C h i l d :

— a n s w e r i n g qu e s t i o n s . Un t i l yo ug e ta n a t t o rn e y. 9 10 A ge nt B la ir : Y ou’ re absol ute ly r igh t. 11 12 A ge nt A gui lar: —C or re ct

. 13 1 4 C h i l d : O k a y. 15 T his e xc ha nge f

ai le d to c ap tur e Ch ild ’ s a ct ua l c om pr eh en sio n and a

ppr ec ia tio n of

his 16 rem aining righ ts. A gent Blair’ s description o f th ese righ ts can o nly be chara cterize d 17 as c onf

usi ng. Pe rs ons in a posi tio n of au tho ri ty m ust advis e thi rt ee n- a nd f

ourte en 18 y ear- old

c hil dr enof

the ir c onst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y ri ght s inac le ar

a nd i nte lli gib le 19 m an ne r if

the y w an t t o r eb ut the pr es um pti on u nde r Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4( F)

. T he 20 m an ne r in whic h a ch ild is inf orm ed of his or he r co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts 21 is r el ev an t t o w he the r the c hil d kn ow ing ly w ai ve d hi s or

he r ri ght s. In thi s c as e, it is 22 im poss ibl e to a sc er

ta in C hil d’ s com

pr eh en sio n and a

ppr ec ia tio n of

his r igh ts w ith out 23 a cl ear an d in te lli gib le advis em en t of suc h righ ts. Fi rs t, the m an ne r in w hic h A ge nt 24 Bl ai r advis ed

Ch ild of the thr ee r em ai nin g M

ira nda w a rni ng s, w hi c h i nc l uded20

1 m entioni ng r ights read on tele visio n, sugg esting that the rights onl y ap p l y when 2 pe opl e ar e ar

re ste d, an d e xpl ai nin g th at Ch ild w as not und er a rr es t, w as a t be st 3 confusin g an d at w orst clearly err oneous . Thirtee n- or fourteen-y ear- old child ren 4 poss es s th es e co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y r igh ts w he the r or not the y ar e unde r ar re st. 5 It is not sur pr isi ng tha t C hil d r es po nd ed that he did

“ [n ] ot r ea lly ” unde rs tand h is 6 rights as they

we re pre sented by

Agent Blair

. 7 { 24} Se co nd, A ge nt B la ir a ske d C hil d to ide nti fy

w hich warn ing s C hil d di d no t 8 unde rs tand. I n r es pons e, the in te rr oga tio n tr an sc ri pt a ppe ar s to ind ic at e tha t C hil d 9 confused the right to rem ain silent with the right to an attorney

. Child explain ed that 10 he tho ught

he und er sto od tha t he ha d a ri ght to ta lk w ith out

a n a tto rn ey , but

that C hil d 11 co uld the n st op the int er

ro ga tio n onl y if Ch ild tho ught the int er ro ga tio n w as “ ge tti ng 12 out of hand” a nd n ot answ er

the que sti ons unt il he obt ai ne d an atto rn ey . A ge nts Bl ai r 13 and Aguilar sim

ply told Child that he wa s absolu tely corre ct and m oved on. G iven 14 thi s e xc ha nge , w e ar e le ft w ith out a ny c le ar ind ic ationof

w he the r Ch ild

a ct ua lly 15 com prehended and appreciated eac h of the M ira nda w ar

nin gs. 16 { 25} A s he re ad

Ch ild his M ira nda ri ght s, A ge nt Bl ai r al so pre se nte d Chil d wi th a 17 not if ic at ion an d w ai ve r fo rm lis tin g tho se ri ght s, an d C hil d w ro te his ini tia ls n ex t t o 18 ea chr igh t l ist ed

on the f orm . B oth Ch ild an d his m oth er sig ne d th e not if

ic at iona nd21

1 w a i v e r f o rm. 2 { 26} Ch ild ’ s la ck

of und er standi ng o f his ri ght s and his ina bil ity to invo ke his r igh ts 3 wa s also dem onstrated by what occurred d uring the interrogation after the for m s wer e 4 sig ne d. Chi ld in iti al ly a dm itt ed that he br oke int o th e vic tim ’ s ho m e an d st ole 5 pe rs ona l i te m s ide nti fi ed by A ge nt Bl ai r tha t be lon ge d to the vic tim

. H ow ev er , Ch ild 6 denied taking a gun or any a mm u n i t ion from

the victim ’ s hom e, and also denied 7 invo lvem ent in the victim ’ s shoo ting. When Agent Blair told Child that he believed 8 Child had sh ot and kil led the victim , C hild d enied killin g the vic t i m , b ec ame ver y 9 upse t, a nd s tart ed

to cr y . C hil d e ve ntu al ly

tol d Agen t Bl ai r “ I don’ t w an t t o ta lk 10 an ym or e . ” A g e n t s B l a i r an d A g u i l ar a c k n ow le dge d and c onf

irm ed Ch ild ’ s in voc at ion 11 of his ri ght to re m ai n sile nt. A ge nt Bl ai r spe ci fi ca lly r es pond ed , “ Y ou d on’ t w an t t o 12 ta lk anym or e? O ka y ,” w hil e A ge nt A gui lar sta te d, “ W e’ re don e. T he n. ” T he 13 int er ro ga tio n st oppe d w hil e A ge nts Bl ai r an d A gui lar co lle ct ed asa liv a sw ab sa m

ple 1 4 f r o m C h i l da n dC h i l du s e dt h e r e s t r o o m. 15 { 27} Fo llo w ing the br eak, A ge nts Bl ai r an d A gui lar re ini tiate d th e int er ro ga tio n, 16 re m ind ing Ch ild tha t he co uld as k to sto p an y furthe r que sti ons if he did not w an t t o 17 ta lk. 18 A ge nt A gui lar: D eA nge lo w e w an t t o—w e jus t, I j ust w an t t o as k 19 y ou a f ewque sti ons okay ? Y ou adm itt ed that y ou22

1 we nt into the house and to ok som e thing s and stuff 2 lik e tha t—tha t’ s a ll w e w an t t o ta lk t o y ou a bout 3 okay ? W e don’ t w an t t o ta lk t o y ou ab out agunor 4 we don’t w ant to ta lk to y ou abou t any of that other 5 stu ff

. O ka y ? Is tha t a lr igh t? 6 Child: (inaudible respon se) 7 A ge nt A gui lar: O ka y , um , w ith tha t in m ind —y ou j ust ke ep in m ind 8 this, y ou can d o ex actlywhat y ou did the last tim e, 9 okay ? Whe n y ou’ ve ha d e noug h and y ou d on’ t w an t 10 to t al k to us anym or e, y ou j ust te ll us y ou d on’ t w an t 11 to t al k an ym or e. O ka y ? Is tha t a lr igh t? ( ina udi ble 12 res po ns e) O k a y , no w, when , when y ou in to uh

. . . 1 3 t h e i r h o u s e o n S u n d a y

—y o u r e m e m

b e r ? Y es ? 14 Sunday or w ha te ve r da y

—ov er the w ee ke nd. Whil e 15 they we re gone. And the things th at y ou took , where 16 did y ou h id e th em

ti ll y ou g ot r id o f the m ? O r did 17 y ou g et r id o f ev er

ythi ng? 18 Inr es pons e, Ch ild

pr ovi de d m or e de ta ils about the spe ci fi c ci rc um stanc es of howhe 19 stole certain item s from the victim ’ s hom e. Resum ing th e interrogation of Child after 20 Child said h e did not want to talk does not scrupulou sly hono r th e in vocation of an 21 in di vi du al ’s rig ht to rem ai n s il en t t ha t t he law re qu ire s. Sta te v. Ki ng , 2013-NMS C22 014, ¶ 8, 300 P. 3d 732. “ T he m om en t tha t the una m big uous sta te m en t is m ad e, the 23 int er ro ga tor m ust ‘ sc ru pul ousl y hon or ’ the sus pe ct ’ s or pe rs on’ s ri ght by ce as ing the 24 interrogation.” Id

. Whe n Chil d cont inu ed to ans w er que sti ons af te r sta tin g that

he 25 did not w an t t o talk , thi s pr ovi de d a ddi tio na l e vid en ce that C hil d di d no t po sse ss23

1 ei the r the m at

ur ity to unde rs tand h is r igh ts o r the f or ce of w ill to as se rt

tho se r igh ts. 2 { 28} Fo ll owing th is i nte rv ie w , Ch ild ’ s c ha rg es w er e am en de d to ( 1) one c ount of 3 fir st de gr ee m

ur de r co nt rary to NM SA 19 78 , Sect io ns 30 -2 -1 (A)(1 ) (1 99 4) an d 3 2A4 2- 3; ( 2) one c ount

of a ggr av at ed bur glary co ntr ar y to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio ns 3 0- 16- 5 4( B) ( 1963 ) an d 32 A -2 -3 ; ( 3) t wo co un ts of ta m pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce c ontrary to 6 Sections 30-22-5 and 32A-2-3; and (4) one count of larce ny over $250 (but not m ore 7 than $5 00) c ontrary

to Se ct ion s 30 -1 6-1 an d 32 A-2- 3. P ri or to tr ia l, Ch ild

ti m el y 8 fi le d am oti on t o su

ppr ess the inc ulp at or

y state m en ts h e m ad e dur ing the Jul y 23, 9 2010 interview, arguing that the State failed to adequately rebut the presum

ption that 10 his statem ents wer e inadm issib le pursuant to Section 32 A- 2-14(F). 11 { 29} D ur ing the sup pr es sio n he ar ing , the S ta te pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m A ge nts 12 Bl ai r an d A gui lar an d C hil d’ s te ac he r at the de te nti on c en te r w he re Ch ild w as he ld. 13 The district court f

ound their testim ony persuasive, notin g in its decision letter that 14 A ge nts Bl ai r an d A gui lar both testif ie d th at “ ba se d onthe ir

e xpe ri en ce in 15 int er vie w ing c hil dr enof

sim ilar age, [Child] w as a rt ic ula te , inquis iti ve a nd f ull y 16 aware of his co nst itu tio na l r igh ts, a nd [ Ch ild ] appe ar ed to be m or e m at

ur e an d 17 intellig ent than children of his ag e. ” The district court noted that Child’s tea cher 18 te sti fi ed

tha t C hil d w as “ w el l- re ad , inquis iti ve an d re ad ily co rr ec ts the gr am m ar a nd24

1 voc ab ulary

of oth er j uve nil es de ta ine d in th e Curr y Co unty Juv en ile D et en tio n 2 Cent er , a nd i n hi s op ini on, [ Ch ild ] is m or e int el lig en t tha n th e av er ag e j uve nil e 3 detainees in his age g roup.” The dist rict cou rt d enied Child’s m otion and determ ined 4 tha t C hil d “ know ing ly , vol unt ar ily a nd i nte lli ge ntl y

w ai ve d his cons tit

uti ona l r igh ts 5 pr ior to spe ak ing w ith law en fo rc em en t, an d, as a re sul t, the S ta te ha s ov er co m e the 6 reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n t ha t t he st at em en ts of [ Ch il d] are i na dm is si bl e.” 7 { 30} O n t h i s r e c o r d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e b u r d e n of pr oof 8 n ec es s ar y t o o v er co m e t h e s t at u t o ry p re s u m p t i o n ag ai n s tad m i t t i n g Ch i l d ’s 9 statem ents. T he testim ony of th e in terrogating officer s is not the ty pe of evidence that 10 co uld ove rc om e thi s pre sum

pti on. Wha t m

ust be c onsi de re d is the e vid en ce f ro m the 11 re co rd ed

in tervie w , not

the of fi ce rs ’ c ha ra ct er iz at ionof Ch ild ’ s m at

ur ity to 12 understand and invok e his constitu tional and statutory rights. The State’ s evidence 13 concerning whether Child rea ds boo ks, converses w ith adult s, cor rec t s other 14 children’ s vo c a

bu l ary and gram m ar, and seem s m ore intelligent and m ature than other 15 ch ildre n is onl y

ind ir ec tly

r el at ed to whethe r Ch ild

a ct ua lly c om pr eh en de d and 16 ap pr ec ia te d e ac h M

ira nda w ar

nin g th at he w as giv en . Whil e suc h ev id en ce is 17 re le va nt, the c ourt m

ust f ir st dete rm in e w he the r at the ti m e of

the int er ro ga tio n th e 18 ch ild ex hib ite d th e m at ur ity to unde rs tand e ac h of

his or he r co nst itu tio na l and25

1 statutory

rights and po ssessed the force of w ill to inv oke such righ t s . Ab s en t clear 2 an dco n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce wh i ch p ro v es t h at Ch i l du n d er s t o o dea ch ri g h t , C h i l d ’s 3 sc hool pe rf

orm an ce is not

m at er ia l ev id en ce. I n th is c as e, the tr an sc ri pt o f the 4 in terro ga tio n f

al ls f ar sho rt of e sta bli shi ng any

of the r equir ed

sho w ing s. 5 A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t cour t er re d inde ny ing Ch ild ’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s be ca

use 6 the State did not m eet its burden of rebutting th e presum ption of inadm issib ility

under 7 Section 32A-2-14(F) by clear and convin cing evidence. 8 IV . C on cl us ion 9 { 31} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the Co urt of

Appe al s ondif

fe re nt g ro unds 10 an d r ev er se the dis tr ic t co urt’ s de nia l of Ch ild ’ s m oti on to supp re ss. W e re m an d f or 11 furthe r pr oc ee din gs i n a cc or da nc e w iththi s op ini on. 12 { 32} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ________

____ __ 14 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

15 WE CONCUR:

16 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, C hief Just ice26

1 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

3 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 4 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice

5 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Justice