People v. Charles P.

California Court of Appeal Aug 5, 1982 No. Crim. 40731Published

Before: Feinerman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a minor may validly waive their constitutional rights without the presence of a parent or adult, provided the waiver is voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Issues

Whether a minor is capable of waiving constitutional rights without the guidance of an adult.
Whether a Miranda waiver is invalid as a matter of law if the minor is not advised of a right to have a parent present.
Whether the minor's confession was valid under the totality of the circumstances test.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a minor has the capacity to make a voluntary confession, even of capital offenses, without the presence or consent of counsel or other responsible adult”

“Appellant’s contention that the failure of the sheriffs to inform him of his right to consult with his parents vitiated his confession is not supported by existing case law.”

Opinion

FEINERMAN, P. J.

Charles P., a minor, appeals from an adjudication of the juvenile court ordering him to remain a ward of the court, pursuant to section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, terminating a prior order of home on probation and ordering him to be suitably placed. The trial court’s order was based upon a finding that the appellant had unlawfully taken and driven an automobile without the consent of the owner, his mother, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851.

The appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence his confession. Three reasons are advanced for this thesis: (1) that minors are not capable of waiving their constitutional rights without the guidance of an informed and interested adult; (2) that his

Miranda (Miranda

Arizona

(1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]) waiver was invalid as a matter of law because he was not advised of his right to have his parents or an interested adult present during his interrogation; and (3) that under the “totality of circumstances” test his

Miranda

waiver was invalid.

We have examined the record and find no merit in the appellant’s contentions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

The appellant was 12 years of age when he was arrested on June 20, 1981. At that time he was a ward of the court and was on probation. His mother testified that he had taken her car without her consent on May 6, 1981, and that she had advised her son, after the May 6 incident, that it was wrong to take the car and that he would be in violation of his probation if he took the car again. She opined that he knew the difference between right and wrong.

[771]

Deputy Sheriff Mumby, the arresting officer, had found the appellant seated behind the wheel of his mother’s automobile after the appellant had run out of gas on his way to a roller skating center. The arrest was based on prior information the officer had received about the appellant and the missing vehicle. Another officer, Deputy Sheriff Nelson, gave the appellant his

People v. Charles P.

AI Brief

FEINERMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief