Statements made by a juvenile to the intake officer or probation officer during the intake process before a hearing on the merits of the petition filed against the juvenile shall not be used or be admissible against the juvenile at any stage of any proceedings in circuit court or in any other court.
An incriminating statement made to a state trooper is not prohibited from admission at trial by this section. Manatt v. State, 311 Ark. 17, 842 S.W.2d 845 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1005, 113 S. Ct. 1647, 123 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1993).
Court properly admitted juvenile's statements at a probation revocation proceeding to her probation officer regarding taking drugs because this section protected juveniles from Miranda violations in a pre-adjudication context, not at a revocation hearing; in addition, the statement was properly admitted because the statement was offered to prove that defendant had violated the terms of her probation. K.N. v. State, 360 Ark. 579, 203 S.W.3d 103 (2005).
Circuit court did not clearly err in denying the suppression of spontaneous statements a juvenile made during his arrest where the arresting officer testified at trial and made no mention of intake, a second officer who was not an intake or probation officer, but rather a sergeant, testified at the hearing that he was also present when the juvenile made the statement, and the juvenile did not make the statement in response to a question, but made the statement of his own volition.
K.B. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 478, 531 S.W.3d 420 (2017).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: K.N. v. State, 203 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2005).
K.N. v. State, 203 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 14דcontends that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-321 (Supp. 2003) prohibits the admissibility of her statements to her juvenile probation officer because those statements were made during an “intake process.”
K.B. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 478. · cites it 3דmade the statement to the effect of, “How can it be rape if our penises weren’t out?” In discussing the application of this statutory requirement, our supreme court said the following with regard to law-enforcement contact with a juvenile: Appellant’s first argument under this…”
Manatt v. State, 842 S.W.2d 845 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2דAppellant’s first argument under this assignment of error is that the trial court violated Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-321 (Repl. 1991), which provides that a statement made by the juvenile to the intake officer shall not be admissible in evidence against the juvenile.”
K.L. v. State, 378 S.W.3d 222 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4דargued at trial that the statements made by him to Montgomery were prohibited by Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-321, which provides: Statements made by a juvenile to the intake officer or probation officer during the intake process before a hearing on the merits of the petition filed…”
Munhall v. State, 986 S.W.2d 863 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2ד1998)), the right against self-incrimination for statements made to an intake officer or probation officer during the intake process (see Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-321 (Repl. 1998)), the right to a detention hearing within 72 hours, if the juvenile is taken into custody (see Ark.”
K.B. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 478, 531 S.W.3d 420. · cites it 4ד” However, it was Detective May, the arresting officer, who testified at trial, and he made no mention of intake. A second Hot Springs police officer, who was not an intake or probation officer, but rather a sergeant, testified at the.”
KN v. State, 203 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 14דcontends that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-321 (Supp. 2003) prohibits the admissibility of her statements to her juvenile probation officer because those statements were made during an "intake process.”
K.B. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 478, 531 S.W.3d 420. · cites it 4ד” However, it was Detective May, the arresting officer, who testified at trial, and he made no mention of intake. A second Hot Springs police officer, who was not an intake or probation officer, but rather a sergeant, testified at the.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.