Opinion ID: 2173751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: right to miranda warnings

Text: Counsel for Karen asserts that Karen should have been informed of her rights when she was questioned by police concerning the incident as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The State contends that Karen was not subjected to a custodial interrogation and, regardless, none of her statements were introduced into evidence. We disagree on both issues. Karen was questioned at the courthouse in the presence of her father by two police officers. As Karen was subjected to a custodial interrogation which had focused upon her, she was entitled to be informed of her rights. In Interest of D.S., supra, 263 N.W.2d at 119; Interest of R.W.B., 241 N.W.2d 546, 556 (N.D.1976); State v. Fields, 294 N.W.2d 404, 406-09 (N.D.1980). The transcript indicates that the officers questioned Karen regarding the vest and received answers indicating Karen wore the vest and had left it at the wrestling tournament. Karen's statements concerning her control and disposal of the vest were elicited in violation of her Miranda rights. In Fare v. Michael C., supra, 99 S.Ct. at 2568, the United States Supreme Court said: The rule the Court established in Miranda is clear. In order to be able to use statements obtained during custodial interrogation of the accused, the State must warn the accused prior to such questioning of his right to remain silent and of his right to have counsel, retained or appointed, present during interrogation. 384 U.S., at 473, 86 S.Ct., at 1627. Karen's statements were elicited by the police without giving Miranda warnings. No objection, however, was made. As we said in State v. Rindy, 299 N.W.2d 783 (N.D.1980), In the absence of obvious error, a sine qua non for review by this court is `that the matter has been appropriately raised in the trial court so that the trial court can intelligently rule on it.' 299 N.W.2d at 785. Section 27-20-56, N.D.C.C., states that the appeal shall be heard upon the files, records, and minutes or transcript of the evidence of the juvenile court, giving appreciable weight to the findings of the juvenile court. We will not entertain objections which are raised for the first time in this court unless they concern obvious error which affects substantial rights of the juvenile, even though this is a trial de novo. Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim.P. To determine whether or not the error affected substantial rights, we examine the entire record and the probable effect of the actions alleged to be error in light of all the evidence. State v. Rindy, supra, 299 N.W.2d at 785-86. In order to determine whether or not substantial rights of Karen's were violated, we must review the entire record.