{
  "id": 3010106,
  "name": "In re D. W., a Minor.-(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. W., Respondent-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. D. W.",
  "decision_date": "1982-08-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 81-668",
  "first_page": "1109",
  "last_page": "1111",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 Ill. App. 3d 1109"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "419 N.E.2d 1145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3045149
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/84/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "401 N.E.2d 323",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.E.2d 831",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2924485
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/53/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 381,
    "char_count": 6122,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.767832733147818e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29925605701336255
    },
    "sha256": "65ce9c9e16fa9383eeea6b3bffb0880cf63edb95f4871974e5e2250af0360609",
    "simhash": "1:2da3aaaab18d2b3d",
    "word_count": 1051
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:18.761710+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re D. W., a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. W., Respondent-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE EARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nD. W., a minor, 16 years of age, was charged in a delinquency petition with burglary and theft. The circuit court of Pulaski County suppressed his confession. The State appeals the suppression order.\nOn October 17, 1981, Murphy\u2019s Service Station in Mound City was burglarized. Shotguns and change from a candy machine, apparently opened by the use of the key, were taken.\nAt the suppression hearing, Mound City chief of police Raymond Minor testified that he arrested the minor on October 25, 1981, after receiving a tip from an unnamed confidential source who had previously furnished information leading to an arrest. Minor further testified that the key to the candy machine was one of 15 hanging on a rack and that D. W. \u201chung around\u201d the station. The owner of the station testified that he had opened the candy machine in D. W.\u2019s presence and that he knew where the guns were hidden in the back room of the station.\nD. W. was brought in for questioning sometime on October 25, 1981. He was taken to the sheriffs department and was questioned by Chief Minor and the juvenile officer in the presence of his stepfather. He was not advised of his Miranda rights. He did not give any statement. He was locked up overnight in the county jail in juvenile detention.\nOn the morning of October 26, 1981, Chief Minor requested Deputy Sheriff Polley to interview the minor. Prior to questioning the minor, Polley brought D. W.\u2019s mother and stepfather to the sheriff\u2019s department. No Miranda warnings were given to the minor prior to the time he stated his involvement in the burglary in response to his mother\u2019s inquiry.\nD. W.\u2019s mother testified that her son was in the office when she got there; that he did not want to talk; that she asked him if he took the guns and he didn\u2019t say anything until \u201cI really got to questioning down on him because he didn\u2019t really want to open up and I had to get on him. ***.\u201d She testified further that her son wouldn\u2019t talk to anyone until she got to the sheriff\u2019s office and \u201ctold him he had to talk to somebody, and I asked him about it and he finally said he did it.\u201d She testified that she addressed her son in a loud, scolding voice and that she was upset. Polley then took his written statement and he signed it.\nThe motion to suppress was based on two grounds: that the arrest was illegal, there being no probable cause, and the confession was involuntary, being the product of improper interrogation.\nThe court suppressed the confession and in explanation noted:\n\u201cCourt finds that in view of the circumstances of the minor\u2019s arrest, the fact that he did refuse to make a statement when first questioned by the police, and did not make any statement until his mother was brought in and told him he had to make a statement in the presence of Officer Polley, the statement was not voluntarily made and I\u2019m going to grant the Motion to Suppress.\u201d\nThe trial court\u2019s determination of voluntariness of a confession will not be reversed on appeal unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (People v. Hawkins (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 181, 290 N.E.2d 831.) Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the minor\u2019s arrest, his overnight incarceration, and the insistence by the minor\u2019s mother that he tell Deputy Polley what occurred, we cannot say that the court\u2019s finding of involuntariness was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nThe trial court might well conclude that the presence of D. W.\u2019s mother and stepfather at the second interrogation on October 26 was more than mere compliance with the notification requirements of section 3.2 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 703 \u2014 2) on the part of the authorities. The minor\u2019s parents had been notified or in any event knew of his detention at the county jail the day before, as his stepfather was present when he was questioned by Chief Minor on October 25. The questioning and exhortation by the mother quite clearly took place during and as part of the questioning by Deputy Polley as well as the minor\u2019s mother and stepfather, unlike the circumstances in Hawkins where the father asked the minor what he had done before any conversation between the parents and the officer and before the officer had begun the interrogation of the minor. The trial court might well conclude that Deputy Polley had the mother present for the purpose of persuading her son to tell his involvement in the burglary and that she was used as an agent of the police. (People v. Hoffman (1980), 81 111 App. 3d 304, 401 N.E.2d 323, vacated on other grounds (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 480, 419 N.E.2d 1145.) Polley was aware that Chief Minor had questioned D. W. the night before and that the minor had refused to give a statement. Furthermore, no Miranda warnings were given by Polley before the confrontation between the minor, his mother and stepfather and Polley. Polley never informed the minor that he need not talk notwithstanding his mother\u2019s insistent demands that he tell what happened. The minor had been interrogated the day before, had been locked up overnight and then again interrogated by a different officer, with the assistance of the minor\u2019s parents, without the benefit of Miranda warnings, according to the view of the record taken by defendant and the State.\nThe correctness of the trial court\u2019s ruling depends largely on a factual determination which it was in a superior position to judge. Polley\u2019s testimony was brief and unclear in several aspects. We cannot say its determination was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nJONES and WELCH, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE EARNS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gloria Thurston, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mound City (Martin N. Ashley and Raymond F. Buckley, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Randy E. Blue and Jack W. McGuire, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re D. W., a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. W., Respondent-Appellee.)\nFifth District\nNo. 81 \u2014 668\nOpinion filed August 3, 1982.\nGloria Thurston, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mound City (Martin N. Ashley and Raymond F. Buckley, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.\nRandy E. Blue and Jack W. McGuire, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1109-01",
  "first_page_order": 1131,
  "last_page_order": 1133
}