Criminal – Murder – Robbery – Defendant’s Statements

A defendant’s status as a 14-year-old at the time he confessed to robbing and murdering his uncle, along with two other teenage accomplices, was not a basis for refusing to admit his statements to police, the Court of Appeals holds.

In concluding that defendant’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, the trial court specifically noted it considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver, including defendant’s age. It found the recitation to defendant of the Miranda rights was “as meticulous as one could imagine” and the evidence presented “put it beyond question’ that defendant understood those rights. The trial court also noted defendant’s attendance at a “Street Law” program, where he received age-appropriate instruction concerning the Miranda rights.

Defendant attended the Street Law program pursuant to a court order after he was found to have unlawfully possessed a BB gun on school property.

The trial court found there was no evidence defendant ever asked for his parents or an attorney when he was being questioned. The court also found there had been no overt police misconduct or anything that could be described or previously had been described by an appellate court as misconduct during defendant’s pretrial questioning.

The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to police admitting his complicity in the robbery and murder of defendant’s uncle.

First-degree murder and robbery convictions affirmed.

Eleazer v. Commonwealth (Felton, J.) No. 2807-06-1, March 18, 2008; Va. Beach Cir.Ct. (West) Michael T. Fasanaro Jr. for appellant; J. Robert Bryden II, AAG, for appellee. VLW 008-7-133(UP), 6 pp.