Court Opinion

ID: 9811633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:40.420645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:44.781949
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis. The majority’s analysis is strained in two aspects: the determination that the parental notification was promptly made, as required by the statute,, and the use of the “totality of the circumstances” construct in making that determination.
THE PROMPTNESS ISSUE
The majority states:
Before being taken into custody by Detective Page, JBJ “confessed to what she asked.” The juvenile then gave the school officer his residence number. JBJ told the officer his mother was not at home. The officer repeatedly tried to call the mother. When the mother still had not arrived home, the officer then called the father at work. Contact was made at that point with a parent — approximately one hour and a half after JBJ was taken into custody.
The majority then concludes: “No evidence suggests the attempts to notify the child’s parents were less than good faith efforts.” I realize the concept of “good faith” is somewhat subjective, but I find the evidence shows, clearly and convincingly, the absence of good faith. After being told by the juvenile that his mother was not home, the school officer attempted six calls to the mother, over an hour’s time, before she called the father’s work number. On that first attempt, she reached a secretary and the father returned the call in five to ten minutes. Assuming, for the sake of argument, it was reasonable for the school officer to suspect that JBJ was being deceitful in saying his mother was not home; then it was reasonable to call the number. However, when the mother did not answer, was it reasonable to call five additional times before calling the father? I think not.
The majority states the factors enumerated in Vann v. State, No. 14-01-00544-CR, 2002 WL 1462901, at *2, — S.W.3d -, —— (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] June 27, 2002, no pet. h.), are relevant considerations. I agree. Below is comparison of the factors and the corresponding action in this case:
Factor Action
Six calls over 60-90 minutes (1) the length of time in custody before notification
Yes (2) whether notification occurred after police obtained a statement
(3) the ease in ultimately contacting a parent Two calls over 10 minutes
(4) what the police did during delay Obtained confession
These factors, separately or together, do not, in my view, suggest promptness.2 *817They suggest the opposite: unreasonable delay. The majority is correct when they acknowledge the parental notification statute requires strict compliance. The actions in this case do not constitute strict compliance. I would hold the notification of JBJ’s parents was not prompt and therefore not in compliance with the statute.
THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTRUCT
The majority utilizes the totality of the circumstances construct in determining whether a violation of the notification statute occurred. No other Texas court has utilized this construct in this manner. If voluntariness of the confession were the issue, then the totality of the circumstances would be considered in making that determination. In re R.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.2002). This appeal does not challenge the voluntariness of the confession; therefore the totality of the circumstances construct is applied inappropriately.
THE CONCURRENCE
Even with a determination that the notification was not prompt, the judgment must still be affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeals has concluded that before a juvenile’s confession can be excluded, there must be a casual connection between the Family Code violation and the making of the statement. Pham v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). There is no evidence of such a casual connection. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress.

. But as a general, common sense matter, what is promptness? If we tell our teenagers to promptly call home when they change locations while visiting friends, would we accept them being at a location for an hour before calling us. Absolutely NOT. Would we accept the excuse that they called our office six times before calling home? Absolutely NOT.