FAYETTEVILLE -- A statement made to police by a minor can be used against him in court if he subsequently is charged as an adult, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Legal Lingo
Reverse and remand
Means a higher court has ruled that the lower court’s reasoning or interpretation of the law was incorrect, but is sending the case back to the lower court for a further determination on the facts of the case. The lower court then looks at the case again in light of the direction it has received from the higher court in rendering its decision.
Source: Staff Report
The case involves James Griffin Jr. of Springdale, who was 16 when he was charged with robbing and assaulting a woman in Fayetteville in 2013. Griffin was in the custody of the state Department of Human Services and signed a waiver of his rights before police questioned him.
Griffin admitted during the interview to another incident in which he entered a woman's apartment in Springdale, rubbed her shoulders and legs and tickled her. Prosecutors charged him as an adult the next day with residential burglary, second-degree sexual assault and aggravated assault.
Griffin filed a motion April 1 to suppress his statement to police, arguing he was legally unable to waive his rights because he was in the Human Services Department's custody.
Prosecutors argued charging Griffin as an adult under state law meant he was able to act as an adult and waive his rights.
Washington County Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay granted Griffin's motion to suppress his statement, agreeing that he was prohibited from waiving his rights. Lindsay noted in his ruling officers did not know at the time of their interview whether Griffin would be charged as a youth or adult.
Prosecutors appealed, and a divided Supreme Court agreed. The case was reversed and sent back to circuit court for further proceedings.
The majority opinion said the court has ruled for the past 23 years that a minor's waiver of the right to counsel under the law applies only to proceedings in juvenile court. The youth becomes subject to the procedures and penalties prescribed for adults when the prosecutor chooses to prosecute a minor as an adult.
"We share the circuit court's concern with protecting a juvenile in Griffin's situation. As Griffin argues, our interpretation of the statute at issue provides incentive for a prosecutor to charge a juvenile in circuit court rather than in the juvenile division when a statement has been taken in violation of the statute," according to the majority opinion written by Justice Courtney Goodson.
Even though the law was intended to provide greater protection for youthful offenders, it has had the opposite effect, the opinion says.
The opinion notes the Legislature hasn't changed the law, meaning the court's earlier interpretation remains the law.
"Accordingly, we must regrettably decline Griffin's invitation to overrule our prior cases," the opinion said.
Other justices wrote concurring and dissenting opinions.
Justice Shawn Womack Jr. concurred with the majority, but said he had qualms about applying the law removing protections retroactively.
"The timing of the event is important," Womack said. "Prior to being charged as an adult in circuit court, the minor is still afforded the protection of a juvenile and that which is invalid cannot be made valid retroactively by a subsequent decision of the state, which is likely often made based on the invalid act in the first place."
Metro on 03/03/2017