Court Opinion

ID: 9575936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:18:43.193545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:43.972746
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge
(Dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, and would remand for a new trial without appellant’s confession.
I conclude it was error, as a matter of law, to receive appellant’s confession into evidence. I find no cure other than a new trial. Appellant’s confession so incriminated him, and so tied him to the other evidence which, standing by itself, was purely circumstantial and somewhat thin, that no other conclusion can be drawn but that with the illegal confession in evidence, the error was prejudicial and noncurable.
When appellant was arrested and brought to the Moorhead Police Department in custody for interrogation, it is not in dispute that the officers knew appellant was a juvenile. Detective Thorsen himself determined that someone should be appointed to act in loco parentis before questioning appellant. Detective Thorsen knew that appellant’s parents were unavailable (there is no claim otherwise; Thorsen acted in good faith in coming to that conclusion); but once he made a decision to select somebody else, he obligated himself and the state to appoint someone neutral and credible. According to appellant’s attorney, appellant had only completed the ninth grade and had difficulty reading and writing English. Thorsen made the decision that he should find some adult to act in loco parentis. The one person he selected, appellant’s older brother Edward, was the one person so impermissibly tainted that he could not possibly serve.
At the police station, Thorsen had first interviewed Edward who made statements incriminating appellant, his own juvenile brother. After getting the statements from Edward that incriminated appellant, Thorsen decided Edward would be the appropriate person to advise his juvenile brother on whether to waive his right to remain silent, waive his right to consult with an attorney, and confess to a serious crime.
To start with, it can be noted that with both of appellant’s parents unavailable, Thor-sen had no constitutional mandate to select a surrogate. Such is not the law. Across the country, particularly in inner cities, juveniles accused of serious crimes may well be arrested who do not have living parents or who, if they have living parents, have no idea of their whereabouts. If the law were that no juvenile could ever be questioned without his parents present, juveniles could commit crimes and avoid interrogation with impunity. But a responsible parent, when available, is advisable, and Thorsen, recognizing this, *62felt an obligation to select somebody. Minn. R.Juv.P. 6.01, subd. 2 (1994). It is at that point the prejudicial error was made. Once law enforcement makes a decision among different options, they need to make the right one. For instance, if law enforcement decides that they have a suspect “in custody” and concedes that they are about to start a custodial interrogation, if they decide they need to read the Miranda warnings, they are now bound to read them in full and correctly. They are bound to get a knowing and intelligent waiver. Another example would be entry into a home. If law enforcement makes a decision that they do not have probable cause, or a home entry warrant, and must rely on permission, they now have an obligation to be sure they get clear permission. So here, once Thorsen made a decision that he should find a stand-in for the parents, he put himself under a legal obligation to find an appropriate person. Edward, the older brother, could not possibly be such a person. From the plain facts of the arrest, we know that Edward and the other adult accompanying appellant were also suspects. They easily had exposure as aiders and abetters, even though the illegal drugs were taken from appellant. Edward directly implicated appellant. Then Edward was allowed to talk to appellant alone for approximately 12 minutes. After that unknown conversation with Edward, the state claims appellant agreed to confess to Thorsen. The possibility is there that Edward and appellant discussed the fact that if appellant, as a juvenile, took the rap, Edward, as an adult, could be off the hook for a more serious offense. We do not know that that happened. But we also do not know that it didn’t. Had Edward been one of appellant’s parents or an appropriate other person to advise him, perhaps we could lay the burden of actively proving coercion on appellant. But the law is clear. The party propounding the confession, here the state, bears the burden of showing it is admissible. Here, the state did not meet its burden because they offered a confession where the suspect was aided, at law enforcement’s direction, by a person, not only a possible suspect himself, but one who the record shows directly implicated the suspect, appellant.
Put another way, if it had been deemed necessary to provide appellant with an attorney because appellant made a direct request for an attorney, would the dictates of Miranda be satisfied if appellant were provided with an attorney who was both a possible suspect himself; and someone who would be called as a witness by the state because the attorney directly implicated appellant? The answer is, of course not.
With the concession by the state that Edward first talked to Detective Thorsen and directly implicated appellant in the possession of illegal drugs, and with the decision by Detective Thorsen that appellant was entitled to a stand-in for his unavailable parents, the reversible error happened the minute Edward was selected to be appellant’s guardian and to assist him with the undeniably serious decision of waiving his right to counsel, waiving his right to remain silent, and making the decision to confess.
I dissent and would remand for a new trial.