Court Opinion

ID: 9665735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:55:39.01468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:18.241755
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The principal opinion adopts the rule “that if after he has been granted his federal constitutional Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, a juvenile subject to jurisdiction of the juvenile court makes a voluntary statement to someone other than a juvenile officer or other juvenile court personnel, and if it is made clear to the juvenile that criminal responsibility can result from any statement he makes and that the questioning authorities are operating as his adversaries rather than his friends, such statements are admissible in evidence against the juvenile in a criminal trial.”
The opinion then holds that if a request to interrogate is made by police personnel, *433“a decision will be made by juvenile authorities, based, no doubt, on the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense, the record and history of the juvenile himself, and other pertinent facts and circumstances.” (Emphasis mine.)
I find nothing in Chapter 211 which, expressly or by implication, gives authority to juvenile authorities to make such a decision. Section 211.151, RSMo 1969, V.A. M.S., provides that “[n] either fingerprints nor a photograph shall be taken of a child taken into custody for any purpose without the consent of the juvenile judge.” Can it be seriously argued that a confession is potentially less damaging to a juvenile accused than his fingerprints or photograph? I think not. And yet, the principal opinion authorizes juvenile officers, without approval of the juvenile judge, to permit a juvenile to utter words or sign statements which will be admissible to convict him if he is later certified for trial as an adult.
The principal opinion evidences a distaste (which I share) for attempting to embrace within the parens patriae concept the older, hardened, knowledgeable recidivist, who, solely because he is under seventeen years of age, passes through our juvenile courts, and, by his presence there and the revulsion he generates, threatens to destroy the Juvenile Court system. But, what of the others ?
I respectfully dissent.