People v. in the Interest of J.D.
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
As a general rule, statements of a juvenile made in the course of a custodial interrogation are not admissible against the juvenile unless a parent is present during the interrogation and both the juvenile and parent are first advised of the juvenile’s Miranda rights.1 See § 19-2-511(1), 6 C.R.S. (1999); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 41, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Nicholas v. People, 973 P.2d 1213, 1222 (Colo.1999). In this case, the Morgan County District Court (trial court) ruled that the statements of a juvenile, J.D., made in the course of telephone conversations she initiated -with…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- California v. BehelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Enrique Ortiz Cervantes v. Bill Walker, Superintendent, Banning Road CampCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- People v. MathenySupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
- Town of Erie v. EasonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
- Andersen v. LindenbaumSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
- People v. MarkoColorado Court of Appeals · 2015
- People v. N.A.S.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2014
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.