{ "id": 8551206, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF CAROL RENEE CHAVIS IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ROBERT CURRY, JR. IN THE MATTER OF KERRY LAMAR OUTLAW", "name_abbreviation": "In re Chavis", "decision_date": "1976-12-01", "docket_number": "Nos. 7626DC537, 7626DC659 and 7626DC691", "first_page": "579", "last_page": "582", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 N.C. App. 579" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551808 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555283 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.C. App. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548516 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/24/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 29", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 N.C. App. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554907 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/10/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 741", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573751 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 N.C. App. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552166 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/27/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 879", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559163 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11333627 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/387/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 368, "char_count": 7455, "ocr_confidence": 0.658, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.3078115247377427e-07, "percentile": 0.9169497912812677 }, "sha256": "0162a696a4e8bee649378e119e5c4910b867137a4bba39ce3f2afce65e62bac3", "simhash": "1:28c840c2a6152858", "word_count": 1204 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF CAROL RENEE CHAVIS IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ROBERT CURRY, JR. IN THE MATTER OF KERRY LAMAR OUTLAW" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThese appeals were consolidated because they present a single question: where the record does not affirmatively show that the juvenile respondent voluntarily and knowingly admitted the allegations in the juvenile petition, did the court err in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent upon a finding, based on the admission, that the respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition.\nRespondents correctly argue that juvenile delinquency hearings, pursuant to G.S. Chap. 7A, Article 23, place them in danger of confinement, and, therefore, the proceedings are to be treated as criminal proceedings, conducted with due process in accord with constitutional safeguards of the Fifth Amendment. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed. 2d 527, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967); In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517, 169 S.E. 2d 879 (1969); In re Arthur, 27 N.C. App. 227, 218 S.E. 2d 869 (1975). Among the rights of the Fifth Amendment is that \u201cNo person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\u201d This is commonly known as the privilege against self-incrimination, and it may be waived if done so knowingly and voluntarily.\nA plea of guilty in a criminal case amounts to a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination if the guilty plea is made knowingly and voluntarily. The requirement that the plea be knowing and voluntary is so important that the record must affirmatively show on its face that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709, (1969); State v. Ford, 281 N.C. 62, 187 S.E. 2d 741 (1972); State v. Harris, 10 N.C. App. 553, 180 S.E. 2d 29 (1971). If the record does not affirmatively show on its face that the plea was knowing and voluntary, the defendant must be allowed to replead. State v. Ford, supra; State v. Harris, supra.\nRespondents\u2019 position is that an \u201cadmission\u201d in a juvenile hearing is equivalent to a guilty plea in a criminal case, and that the record must therefore affirmatively show on its face that the admission was entered knowingly and voluntarily. We agree.\nThere are some significant differences between criminal trials and juvenile proceedings. In the juvenile proceeding there is no jury and the district judge rules on the admissibility of the evidence as well as on the weight and credibility of the evidence. See, In re Simmons, 24 N.C. App. 28, 210 S.E. 2d 84 (1974). However, if we are to require an affirmative showing from the face of the record that a guilty plea was understandingly and voluntarily entered, and we are so required by Boy-kin v. Alabama, supra, then we see no less reason to require the same affirmative showing in juvenile proceedings. \u201cThe fact that the present proceeding is not an ordinary criminal prosecution but is a juvenile proceeding under G.S. Chap. 7A, Article 23, does not lessen but should actually increase the burden upon the State to see that the child\u2019s rights were protected.\u201d In re Meyers, 25 N.C. App. 555, 558, 214 S.E. 2d 268 (1975). \u201cThe privilege [against self-incrimination] applies in juvenile proceedings the same as in adult proceedings.\u201d In re Burrus, supra at 530.\nAt a juvenile hearing an admission by a juvenile must be made knowingly and voluntarily, and this fact must affirmatively appear on the face of the record, or the juvenile will be allowed to replead. Procedures adopted by this Court in State v. Harris, supra, and confirmed in State v. Ford, supra, are appropriate in a juvenile hearing. Before accepting the juvenile\u2019s admission, the judge can question the juvenile to determine if his admission is understandingly and voluntarily made.\nIn the matter of Curry, the State contends that even without the respondent\u2019s admission there is evidence to support the adjudication of delinquency by way of an extrajudicial confession to a police officer. However, testimony by the officer concerning the juvenile\u2019s extrajudicial admission was not admissible since the record does not show that the juvenile was given any Miranda warnings, nor was any finding made by the district judge as to the voluntariness of the statements. In re Meyers, supra.\nThe Court\u2019s order, in respondent Outlaw\u2019s case, states that evidence was presented. However, the proceedings were not recorded so there is no record or summary of the evidence. The State cites Christie v. Powell, 15 N.C. App. 508, 190 S.E. 2d 367 (1972), and argues that when evidence is not contained in the record there is a presumption of sufficient evidence to support judicial findings of fact. That is the rule in civil cases, but we are not inclined to extend the rule to the juvenile proceeding presently before us.\nAll three of these cases are reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Morris and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert R. Reilly in the Matter of Carol Renee Chavis; by Assistant Attorney General Ann Reed in the Matter of John Robert Curry, Jr.; by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery, III, in the Matter of Kerry Lamar Outlaw; for the State.", "Public Defender Michael S. Scofield, by Assistant Public Defender James Fitzgerald and Assistant Public Defender Mark A. Michael, for respondent appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF CAROL RENEE CHAVIS IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ROBERT CURRY, JR. IN THE MATTER OF KERRY LAMAR OUTLAW\nNos. 7626DC537, 7626DC659 and 7626DC691\n(Filed 1 December 1976)\n1. Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 juvenile delinquency hearing \u2014 admission by juvenile voluntarily and knowingly made \u2014 affirmative showing in record\nWhere the record does not affirmatively show that the juvenile respondent voluntarily and knowingly admitted the allegations in the juvenile petition, the trial court erred in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent upon a finding, based on the admission, that the respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition.\n2. Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 juvenile delinquency hearings \u2014 treatment as criminal proceedings \u2014 constitutional safeguards required\nJuvenile delinquency hearings, pursuant to G.S. Chap. 7A, Article 23, place juveniles in danger of confinement, and the proceedings are therefore to be treated as criminal proceedings, conducted with due process in accord with constitutional safeguards of the Fifth Amendment.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 affirmative showing required in record\nA plea of guilty in a criminal case amounts to a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination if the guilty plea is made knowingly and voluntarily, and the requirement that the plea be knowing and voluntary is so important that the record must affirmatively show on its face that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 23; Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 juvenile hearing \u2014 admission equivalent to guilty plea \u2014 showing of voluntariness required in record\nAn \u201cadmission\u201d in a juvenile hearing is equivalent to a guilty plea in a criminal case, and the record must therefore affirmatively show on its face that the admission was entered knowingly and voluntarily.\nAppeal by respondent Chavis from Black, Judge. Judgment entered 3 February 1976 in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Appeal by respondent Curry from Lamving, Judge. Judgment entered 11 March 1976 in District Court, Mecklen-burg County. Appeal by respondent Outlaw from Lanning, Judge. Judgment entered 22 March 1976 in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 November 1976.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert R. Reilly in the Matter of Carol Renee Chavis; by Assistant Attorney General Ann Reed in the Matter of John Robert Curry, Jr.; by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery, III, in the Matter of Kerry Lamar Outlaw; for the State.\nPublic Defender Michael S. Scofield, by Assistant Public Defender James Fitzgerald and Assistant Public Defender Mark A. Michael, for respondent appellants." }, "file_name": "0579-01", "first_page_order": 607, "last_page_order": 610 }