Court Opinion

ID: 9665667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:54:06.546536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.500178
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result reached in this case and agree that the warning given the juvenile was inadequate for the reasons set forth in the main opinion, as well as for the reason that the juvenile was not informed that under Sec. 211.271(3) he was at liberty to make a confession to the juvenile officer which could not be used against him except in juvenile proceedings. The legislature has so provided and we should not begrudge the juvenile his right to be advised of this important right.
However, I dissent with respect to the views expressed that Sec. 211.271(3) operates to make confessions obtained by the police while the child is in juvenile custody *532admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Wright, Mo., 515 S.W.2d 421, handed down this same date. ■
I also dissent from the view that the juvenile need not be warned specifically that he can be certified for trial and prosecuted as an adult under the general law, and that any statements he makes (except, of course, statements to the juvenile authorities) would be admissible against him in such a trial. In my opinion, this warning is required, not merely “desirable”. Our failure to say so plainly invites attempts to comply in form but not in substance.