State v. DeAngelo M.

Summary

The New Mexico Supreme Court considers whether statements made by a thirteen-year-old child during custodial interrogation were admissible under Section 32A-2-14(F) of the New Mexico Delinquency Act. The court holds that the State must rebut the statutory presumption of inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence that the child was adequately warned and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived each constitutional and statutory right. The court concludes that the interrogation record did not establish the required comprehension and waiver, and directs that the statements be suppressed.

Holdings

1. The State must rebut the presumption of inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence.
2. The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, when the thirteen- or fourteen-year-old made the statement to a person in a position of authority, the child was warned of the constitutional and statutory rights and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived each right. The evidence must show that the child had the maturity to understand each right and the force of will to assert those rights.
3. Expert testimony may assist the fact-finder, but it is not essential to rebut the presumption.
4. The State failed to rebut the presumption of inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence, so DeAngelo's statements must be suppressed.

Questions Presented

1. What burden of proof must the State satisfy to rebut the presumption that statements made by a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old child to a person in a position of authority are inadmissible under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-14(F)?
2. What evidence must the State present to establish that the child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived each constitutional and statutory right?
3. Whether expert testimony is essential to rebut the statutory presumption.
4. Whether the evidence in this case rebutted the presumption of inadmissibility.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded