Court Opinion

ID: 9643878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:42:30.435368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:04.874335
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that we should overrule the per se McCutchen rule requiring that a juvenile be accorded an opportunity to consult with an adult interested in that juvenile’s welfare, and who has been informed of the juvenile’s rights before he may effectively waive his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. I also approve of this court’s adoption of a totality of the circumstances test which includes:
evaluation of the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and . . . whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571-72, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). See Commonwealth v. Barry, 500 Pa. 108, 454 A.2d 985 (1982) (McDermott, J. dissenting opinion in which Larsen and Hutchinson, JJ. join).
*228However, I would not apply any presumption, evidentiary or otherwise, to a failure to afford a juvenile an opportunity to consult with an “interested adult”. Whether a juvenile has had such an opportunity or not, however, may be a factor to be considered in determining whether a juvenile has knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.
In the present case, either with or without the presumption, the record clearly demonstrates the Commonwealth proved appellant’s confession was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.
McDERMOTT, j., joins in this opinion.