Court Opinion

ID: 9612797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:11:21.411435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:23.135662
License: Public Domain

EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe the majority has misunderstood the Court of Criminal Appeals’ instructions to us on remand and has misconstrued and misapplied the law, I respectfully dissent.
A jury found appellant, John Tuy Pham, a juvenile certified to stand trial as an adult, guilty of murder and assessed punishment at confinement for life. Appellant argued on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because his confession was obtained in violation of section 52.02(b) of the Family Code, which requires prompt parental notification of the detention of a juvenile and the reason for the detention. By opinion dated December 28, 2000, we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause. Pham v. State, 36 S.W.3d 199, 205 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000), vacated by 72 S.W.3d 346 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of its opinion in Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Gonzales held that, “before a juvenile’s written statement can be excluded, there must be a causal connection between the Family Code violation and the making of the statement.” Pham, 72 S.W.3d at 346; see Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 912. I believe the majority misconstrues the meaning of “causal connection,” erroneously places the burden of proof on the defendant, and assesses the wrong factors in determining whether the confession of a juvenile should be excluded.

Family Code Section 52.02(b) and Code of Criminal Procedure Article S8.2S

Appellant contends the officers who took him into custody did not comply with see*634tion 52.02(b) of the Family Code and therefore his confession must be suppressed. Section 52.02(b) states that “[a] person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of the person’s action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody to: (1) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and (2) the office or official designated by the juvenile board.” Tex. Fam.Code ÁNN. § 52.02(b) (Vernon Supp.2004). Provisions of the Family Code control issues concerning juvenile confessions, although they are raised in a criminal forum. Griffin v. State, 765 S.W.2d 422, 427 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Smith v. State, 881 S.W.2d 727, 731 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. refd). When a juvenile is in custody, strict compliance with the requirements of the Family Code is mandated. See Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 872 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Comer v. State, 776 S.W.2d 191, 194 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).
However, section 52.02(b) is “not an independent exclusionary statute.” Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 912. Thus, a violation of section 52.02(b) does not make a juvenile’s confession automatically inadmissible. Id. Rather, evidence obtained in violation of the Family Code is excluded through the operation of article 38.23(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 913.1 Article 38.23(a) provides that “[n]o evidence obtained ... in violation of any provisions of [state or federal law] shall be admitted in evidence” against a defendant in a criminal case. Tex.Code CRIm. PROC. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.2003) (emphasis added). However, “evidence is not ‘obtained ... in violation’ of a provision of law [unless] there is [a] causal connection between the illegal conduct and the acquisition of the evidence.” Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 912; Schafer v. State, 95 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. dism’d). Article 38.23 thus embraces the attenuation doctrine, which is a method for determining whether evidence was “obtained” in violation of law. Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750-51 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Under the attenuation doctrine, evidence whose acquisition is sufficiently attenuated from a violation of the law is not considered to be “obtained ... in violation” of law and need not be excluded. Id. at 750. Thus, an otherwise valid confession following an illegal detention will not be excluda-ble under article 38.23 when it is determined that the taint of the illegality has dissipated by the time the confession was taken. Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 913, n. 10; Comer, 776 S.W.2d at 196. In such a case, the causal chain between the illegal arrest and the acquisition of the statement is broken. See Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 788 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

Burden of Proof

When a juvenile defendant seeks to suppress a confession allegedly obtained in violation of section 52.02(b) of the Family Code, the burden of proof is initially on the defendant to show a violation of that section; once the defendant has shown a violation, the burden shifts to the State to prove compliance with section 52.02(b). See Roquemore, 60 S.W.3d at 869-70; Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7, 9-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). If after reviewing the defendant’s evidence of a violation of section 52.02(b) and the State’s evidence of compliance we find a violation of section 52.02(b), we must still determine whether the confession was “obtained” in violation of law, so that exclusion is necessary under article *63538.23, or whether the taint of the section 52.02(b) violation is so attenuated that article 38.23 does not require exclusion. See Roquemore, 60 S.W.3d at 870.

Violation of Section 52.02(b)

Appellant contends that the officers who took him into custody did not comply with the prompt notice provision of Section 52.02(b) of the Texas Family Code. Section 52.02(b)(1) requires that “[a] person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of the person’s action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to: (1) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02(b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 52.02(b) does not define the term “promptly.” The issue presented, therefore, is whether notice from the officer at the juvenile holding facility to appellant’s sister, approximately six hours after his arrest, or to his father more than seven hours after the arrest, was “prompt” notice to appellant’s “parent, guardian, or custodian” within the meaning of section 52.02(b).
In deciding whether parental notification under section 52.02(b) was prompt, courts have considered (1) the length of time the juvenile had been in custody before parental notification; (2) whether notification occurred before or after the officers obtained a statement; (3) the ease with which the officers were able to contact the parent; and (4) the actions of the officers during the period of delay. Vann v. State, 93 S.W.3d 182, 185 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd); but see In re 86 S.W.3d 810, 814-15 (Tex.App.Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (observing that factors noted in Vann are “relevant considerations,” but applying totality of circumstances test to determine whether notification was made with reasonable speed).
Here, appellant was detained at 2:35 p.m. He had been in custody somewhat less than 6 hours when his sister was notified of his whereabouts, at approximately 8:15 p.m., and 7 hours and 15 minutes when his father — the proper person to receive notice under the statute — was contacted, at approximately 9:50 p.m. No notice of the reason for his detention was given until the next morning. Meanwhile, the officers had taken appellant’s statement at 4:38 p.m., two hours after his initial detention. The officers took appellant to be warned by a magistrate; took him to the downtown police station to be interrogated by an investigator, to whom he gave his statement; drove him to a juvenile processing facility to be processed, fingerprinted, and photographed; and, only afterwards, notified his sister of his whereabouts. The officers made no attempt whatsoever to notify appellant’s parents of his detention until almost 10:00 p.m. When the parents were finally contacted, they were not given an explanation, even though subsection 52.02(b) requires that the officer promptly give the parents not only notice that the child is in custody but also “a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02(b); see Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). I would, therefore, find that appellant bore his burden of showing a violation of section 52.02(b).
By contrast, the State presented no evidence of its compliance with section 52.02(b). Instead, the State argues in its brief that the evidence supports the conclusion that appellant’s parents were notified, at the earliest, when appellant was taken into custody at 2:45 p.m., based on Sergeant Gillane’s testimony that he notified the high school principal of appellant’s arrest about 2:45 p.m., and his understanding of school procedures. However, there is no evidence that the school actually noti*636fied, or even attempted to notify appellant’s parents, and appellant’s mother testified that no one from the school notified her. The trial judge found that there was no notice to appellant’s family until 8:15 p.m., a finding that precludes our consideration of the State’s argument that notice occurred earlier; and the evidence supports the trial court’s fact finding that no one in appellant’s family was notified until that evening. Moreover, even had the school notified appellant’s family, the officers who took appellant into custody would not have been relieved of their statutory duty to give appellant’s parents prompt notice of the detention and the reason for it.
The duty to notify a child’s parent, guardian, or custodian belongs to the “person taking a child into custody,” ie., Officers Hale and Parish, and their supervisor, Office Miller, in this ease. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 52.02(b). It was their responsibility to see to it that notice of appellant’s arrest, with a statement of the reason for taking him into custody, was promptly given to appellant’s parents and the official designated by the juvenile court. See In re C.R., 995 S.W.2d 778, 783 (Tex.App.Austin 1999, pet. denied) (parent must be notified that child has been taken into custody and the reasons why). The delegation of responsibility for notification may be delegated (as here) to another officer, but, once it is delegated, that officer must comply with section 52.02(b). In re 86 S.W.3d at 815. Section 52.02(b) does not permit delegation of this responsibility to a non-officer. Nor, in my judgment, is notification of appellant’s sister adequate; rather, the State’s duty of notification was fulfilled only when appellant’s parents were notified both of his detention and of the reason for it. Cf. Vann, 93 S.W.3d at 184-85 (notification of juvenile’s adult cousin, who was adult most often at home in home where juvenile often resided satisfied section 52.02(b) requirement that “custodian” be notified).
What is striking about this case is that the arresting officers, and their supervisor, Officer Miller, did not consider it their responsibility to notify appellant’s parents about his arrest. Officer Miller testified as follows:
Q. [Prosecutor]: As far as during the time period you had the defendant in your custody there, did you at any time talk with any family member of the defendant as far as where the defendant was and what was going on with the case at that point?
A. [Officer Miller]: No, I didn’t.
Q. Subsequent to that did other officers do that?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And who was that?
A. Officer Parham in the juvenile division contacted the defendant’s sister at 8:15. And the Harris County juvenile probation contacted the defendant’s father at approximately 9:50.
[[Image here]]
Q. [Defense Counsel]: And I think you testified that you did not, and I may be wrong; but, you did not contact John Pham’s parent, guardian or custodian once John Pham was taken into custody?
A. [Officer Miller]: I did not. It was done by Officer Parham in the juvenile division.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. Well, when was John Pham taken into custody?
A. When he was picked up out at the school.
Q. And when did Officer Parham contact or when was Officer Parham alerted as to the arrest of John Pham and the necessity by Officer Parham to comply *637with Sec. 52.02 of the Family Code relative to release or delivery to the court?
A. Officer Parham contacted the defendant’s sister at 8:15 p.m.
[[Image here]]
Q. And did you talk to Officer Parham yourself?
A. Nope, I did not.
Q. Who did, if you know?
A. Who talked to Officer Parham?
Q. Correct.
A. From our division? I don’t understand. I am sure that many people talk to Officer Parham, but pertaining to what?
Q. Well, pertaining to this case who contacted Officer Parham for purpose of alerting him that a juvenile was in custody and that he needed to contact the child’s parent, guardian or custodian, if you know?
A. I don’t know.
Q. [A]s I understand your testimony the only time or the first time that a person with the juvenile authorities is contacted is when Officer Parham ... was contacted relative to John Pham at 8:00 o’clock or 8:15 or something along those lines.
A. Basically that would be correct. The defendant was arrested. He made a statement, a voluntary statement. He was transferred to the juvenile division who notified the defendant’s family and also notified Hams County Juvenile Probation who then, I assume, although I don’t know who did it, notified the juvenile courts and it happened within that chronological order generally speaking.
It is obvious from Officer Miller’s testimony that he was under the impression the arresting officers had no duty to notify a child’s parents upon a child’s arrest. Officer Miller, one of the lead investigators in this murder case, apparently believed that the homicide division could hold appellant as long as necessary to interrogate him without any notice to appellant’s parents — that it was the responsibility of juvenile officers to notify appellant’s parents after homicide was finished with the interrogation and after homicide had transported appellant to the Mykawa Road juvenile processing office across town.
I would hold that section 52.02(b) of the Family Code was violated by the State’s failure to give appellant’s parents prompt notice of his detention and of the reason for it. The next step is to determine whether the violation caused the acquisition of appellant’s confession to be obtained in violation of law, and therefore to be subject to exclusion under article 38.23, or whether the taint was so attenuated that exclusion was not required.

Causal Connection and Attenuation of the Taint

The majority would place a burden on a juvenile who seeks to suppress a confession taken in violation of section 52.02(b) to establish a “causal connection” between the violation and his confession by proving (1) that he was aware of his right to have his parents present; (2) that he was aware they were not promptly notified; (3) that he asked to speak with his parents; and (4) that his parents would have attempted to contact him or an attorney had they been notified of his detention and the reason for it. The majority cites no authority for the startlingly onerous burden it creates for juvenile defendants; nor is there any; such a burden is wholly unprecedented.
Our task is not to determine the extent of appellant’s knowledge of and insistence on his rights against the willful obstruction of those rights by the police to prove that *638his confession was caused by their violations of law. A violation of section 52.02(b) having been found, our task is to determine whether appellant’s confession must be excluded through the operation of article 38.23 or whether the taint of the illegal acquisition of confession was so attenuated that the causal chain was broken and the confession could not be said to have been obtained in violation of law.
Here, while no attempt was made to contact appellant’s parents, as required by section 52.02(b), appellant was taken from school by the arresting officers to be warned by a magistrate and then taken directly to the downtown police station to be interrogated by an investigator, where he gave his confession. His parents were not notified of his detention until after he had been processed into a juvenile facility, more than seven hours after he had been taken into custody, and they were not told why he was there until the following morning. If there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant was aware of his right of access to his parents, it is because the officers never informed him of that right and made no attempt to ensure that he was accorded it, even though they — not appellant — had the burden of informing appellant’s parents of his detention and the reason for it. If there is nothing in the record to show that appellant was aware that his parents were not promptly notified, it is because he could have discovered that they were not notified only from the arresting officers, who alone had that information and who had him in custody. If there is nothing in the record to indicate what appellant’s parent would have done had they been told before 10:00 o’clock at night where their son was or, even then, why he was in custody, it is because coun-terfactual universes — those in which things did not happen — do not produce evidence of what did happen. But none of these considerations is material to our task of determining whether the taint of the section 52.02(b) violation had so dissipated that article 38.23 does not require exclusion of the illegally obtained confession.
To determine whether the taint has dissipated, we must conduct a taint attenuation analysis, utilizing the four factors from Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 788. Comer, 776 S.W.2d at 196-97; see also Johnson, 871 S.W.2d at 750. Those factors are: (1) the giving of Miranda warnings; (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) the purpose and flagraney of the official misconduct. Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 788.
In similar although less egregious circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeals held in Comer that detaining a juvenile defendant for three hours while officers obtained his confession before taking him to a juvenile processing facility violated section 52.02(a) of the Family Code.2 776 S.W.2d at 197. The court further concluded that the taint of officers’ unlawfully detaining the juvenile appellant for approximately three hours to obtain his confession before taking him to either an authorized officer of the juvenile court or to a juvenile detention center had not dissipated at the time he gave his confession. 776 S.W.2d at 196. It observed:
The record reflects appellant was fully cautioned by Justice of the Peace Mal*639colm before he gave his statement. However, every other factor in the attenuation of taint analysis adopted in Bell v. State, supra, at 788, militates in favor of our conclusion appellant’s confession was illegal: it was taken immediately upon his having been taken into custody, without intervening circumstances, by officers whose exclusive reason for failing to comply with § 52.02(a), supra, was to obtain the statement. We do not imply that the officers willfully violated the law in this case. Nevertheless, in taking upon themselves the decision to interrogate appellant, the officers usurped a function which Title 3 vests in the officer designated by the juvenile court. We cannot say with any degree of confidence that, had appellant been transported ‘forthwith’ to the custody of the juvenile detention facility, where he may have had access to, if not counsel, at least his parents ... he would still have chosen to confess his crime. Appellant’s statement should have been suppressed under Article 38.23, supra.
Comer, 776 S.W.2d at 196-97.
Here, although appellant was taken into custody at 2:35 in the afternoon, appellant’s parents were not notified about his arrest until almost 10 p.m., and it was not until the following morning that they found out why appellant had been arrested. During this time, appellant was taken before a magistrate and given his Miranda warnings, then taken to the police station to give his statement, and only then, after the statement was taken, transferred to a juvenile processing facility and processed. The record reflects that the arresting officers and their supervisor did not consider it their responsibility to notify appellant’s parents about his arrest and did not attempt to notify them; they left that task to officials at the juvenile processing center to fulfill after processing was complete; even then, the State did not fulfill its duty to notify appellant’s parents both of his detention and of the reason for it until the next day. The officers thus took it upon themselves to interrogate appellant without notifying his parents; and they held him in violation of his rights under the Family Code for a much longer time before fulfilling their duty under the Code than the officers in Comer.3
As in Comer, every factor in the attenuation of taint analysis adopted in Bell v. State, other than the giving of Miranda warnings, indicates that the taint had not dissipated. Rather, the fact that the arresting officers immediately took appellant to be interrogated at the police station without even attempting to notify his parents of his whereabouts or the reason for his detention supports the inference that appellant’s detention and prompt interrogation without parental notice — the violation of section 52.02(b) — caused appellant to give the officers the confession they wanted. Appellant had an absolute right to have his parents or attorney accompany him in the juvenile processing office; yet he did not have that opportunity because his parents were not promptly notified.
As the Court of Criminal Appeals observed in Roquemore, “The Family Code seeks to strike a balance between the competing interests of public safety and child *640welfare.” 60 S.W.3d at 872.4 The balance is struck, in part, by limiting the investigative function of the police in juvenile cases. Id. We must give effect to the legislature’s intent by requiring strict compliance with those provisions of the Family Code regarding the arrest of juveniles. Id. Here, the limitation placed by section 52.02(b) of the Code on the investigative function of the police was ignored. Appellant’s parents should have been promptly notified shortly after their son’s arrest so that they could have had an opportunity to join appellant at the juvenile processing office and could have arranged for an attorney to join appellant at the juvenile processing office if they had wished. See Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 911 (noting 5 to 6 hour delay that occurred after juvenile was processed into detention facility); Hill v. State, 78 S.W.3d 374, 382-84 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding notice not prompt where officers waited 4 hours and 20 minutes before notifying mother, after defendant had confessed, and reversing case); In re C.R., 995 S.W.2d at 782-83 (holding juvenile’s confession inadmissible because of violation of Family Code Section 52.02(b) where no attempt was made to contact mother until after officers took juvenile to juvenile processing center, issued warnings, and took statement).
As in Comer, I could not say with any degree of confidence that, if appellant had access to his parents or his attorney, he would still have chosen to confess to the crime. See Comer, 776 S.W.2d at 197. Accordingly, I would hold that appellant’s statement should have been suppressed under article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

. The Texas Family Code expressly makes Chapter 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to juvenile proceedings. See Tex Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(c) (Vernon Supp.2004); see also Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

. Section 52.02(a) requires essentially that "a person taking a child into custody, without unnecessary delay and without first taking the child to any place other than a juvenile processing office,” must release the child to a designated responsible adult, or bring the child before the official designated by the juvenile board or to a detention facility designated by the juvenile board or to a secure detention facility, or release him. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02(a).

. As in Comer, the officers in this case also interrogated appellant before taking him to a juvenile processing facility. The majority finds, however, that appellant waived his right to object to interrogation by the arresting officers rather than by an officer designated by the juvenile court because he failed to object in the trial court to the officers’ violation of section 52.02(a). I would not reach this issue because I would find a violation of section 52.02(b).

. Roquemore reversed a decision of this Court that a Rule 52.02(a) violation did not require exclusion of the confession of a juvenile and expressly disapproved this Court’s limiting Comer to its facts. 60 S.W.3d at 872.