This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A juvenile (Child) was taken to a crisis shelter after his father requested law enforcement assistance to remove him from the home. The next day, during an investigation into a residential burglary, a deputy interviewed the Child twice at the shelter. The first interview included a Miranda rights waiver, but the second interview, conducted an hour later, did not include a re-advisement of rights. During the second interview, the Child confessed to involvement in the burglary. The interviews were not successfully recorded due to equipment failure.
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: Denied the Child’s motion to suppress his confession, finding that he was not in custody during the interviews, had waived his constitutional rights, and that the deputy had attempted to comply with recording requirements.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Child): Argued that his confession should be suppressed because (1) there was no evidence he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, (2) he was not re-advised of his rights before the second interview, and (3) the interviews were not electronically recorded as required by law.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the Child was not in custody during the interviews, that he had validly waived his rights, and that the deputy made a good-faith effort to comply with recording requirements.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Child knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights before confessing.
- Whether the deputy was required to re-advise the Child of his constitutional rights before the second interview.
- Whether the failure to electronically record the interviews violated statutory requirements.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the Child’s motion to suppress.
Reasons
Per Garcia J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found no error in the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The Child did not raise the issue of whether the waiver of his rights was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent at the suppression hearing, and thus the argument was not preserved for appeal. The Court also held that the deputy was not required to re-advise the Child of his rights before the second interview, as the one-hour delay did not invalidate the initial waiver. Finally, the Court concluded that the statutory requirement for electronic recording did not apply because the Child was not in custody during the interviews, and the deputy made a good-faith effort to comply with the recording requirements.