The Mellor Law Firm, APLC

California Real Estate, Construction, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure and Business Litigation Lawyers

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Call: (951) 221-4744

  • Our Firm
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • Real Estate Law
    • Construction Law
    • Foreclosures
    • Business Law
    • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
    • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    • Contract Disputes
    • Insurance
    • Loan Modifications
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Case Handling
  • Clients
  • Blog
  • Contact

Miranda Rights Eroded Again: Unusual Case All The Way Around.

December 28, 2015 by

Miranda Joseph H., age 10, woke up early one morning and shot his father in the head as he slept on the sofa. Joseph was a difficult child. From the time he was three years old, his paternal grandmother could not babysit him because she could not control his outbursts. He suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) resulting in trouble at school due to his inability to sit still; he also engaged in impulsive and violent behavior towards both children and teachers, which included hitting, throwing tantrums, kicking, biting, scratching, stabbing with pencils or other sharp objects, and hitting with objects, as well as running out of class. Joseph had an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for a learning disability. For his part, Joseph’s father Jeff had an unstable work history and was unemployed for the three years leading up to his death, although he had worked for a time as a plumber. He was involved with a Neo-Nazi group and was addicted to Percocet and methamphetamine. Jeff was frequently violent towards both his wife and Joseph. He was worse when he was drunk or high; on those occasions, he would just lose control, and start beating on Joseph. Sometimes Jeff’s abuse of Joseph was such that his wife had to intervene. A few days before the shooting, Jeff became violent with his wife, throwing a glass cup at her. Jeff’s wife heard a loud noise one night and went downstairs. Joseph told her, “I shot dad.” She called 911.   When the police came, Joseph volunteered he shot his dad in the ear. At the police station, Joseph was interviewed by a detective, who first asked questions to determine if he understood the difference between right and wrong, before admonishing Joseph of his Miranda rights. A videotape of the interview was played in open court. In it, Joseph admitted shooting his father and explained the circumstances much as he had done in the patrol car. Specifically, Joseph described how his father came home, the family decided to have a movie night, then going to bed where he woke up after a little while and “started thinking that I should end the son versus father thing.” After a contested hearing, the juvenile court found that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his acts despite the statutory presumption of incapacity (Penal Code section 26 states “All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes: One—Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness.”), had committed an act which would have been second-degree murder if committed by an adult, and had discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The minor was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and appealed.   The Court of Appeal found against the minor on his argument the juvenile court considered his statements in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Ariz. (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]. Joseph sought review by the California Supreme Court. In a 4 to 3 decision, the California Supreme Court denied review. The three justices who were of the opinion review should be granted are Liu, Cuellar, and Kreger. Justice Liu, joined by Justice Cuellar, took the unusual step of writing a lengthy dissent to the denial of the petition for review, discussing such matters as having a parent or guardian present when a child is questioned and considering a child’s age, experience, background and intelligence before admitting the child’s incriminating statements. (In re Joseph H. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 2; June 8, 2015) (Rev. Den. November 2, 2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 171].)

Filed Under: Appellate Law News, California Supreme Court Law News, Children Law News, Constitutional Law News, Criminal Law News, Fifth Amendment, Legal News Tagged With: § 12022.53(d), § 26, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 171, 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, Pen.Code, Pen.Code § 12022.53(d), Pen.Code § 26, Penal Code, Penal Code section 12022.53 subdivision (d), Penal Code section 26, section 12022.53, section 26, subdivision (d)

Call Us: 951-222-2100

Consultations available in-office or over
the phone. Speak to one of our leading attorneys in California today.

Recent News

When and How to Sue After a Car Crash

December 30, 2020 By admin

Getting in a car crash can be detrimental to your physical and mental well-being. To compensate for stress, injuries, and damage to your vehicle, you should ensure that you get the compensation you deserve. An experienced personal injury lawyer can help you with that. Reasons … Read More...

When a Tenant Can Sue a Landlord

December 30, 2020 By admin

Rental agreements must be upheld by both the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord or rental company violates the agreement, it may be grounds for legal action by the tenant. In most cases, a tenant will sue their landlord after moving out, but a tenant can also sue while they … Read More...

Does Foreclosure Affect Your Credit?

December 18, 2020 By Mark Mellor

Even if you have carefully planned your budget, income, and expenses down to the last cent, things don’t always go the way you expect them to. Life might get in the way and ruin your plans—and a bad investment, medical emergency, natural disaster, or other catastrophe can … Read More...

Follow Mellor Law Firm

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Our Areas of Practice

  • Real Estate
  • Construction Law
  • Mechanic’s Lien – Stop Notice
  • Foreclosures
  • Business Law
  • Contract Disputes
  • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
  • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Insurance
  • Lien Stripping Bankruptcy
  • Loan Modifications
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Property Ownership

Navigate

  • Home
  • Our Firm
  • Mark Mellor
  • Practice Areas
  • Case Handling
  • Clients
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Privacy Policy

Practice Areas

  • Real Estate
  • Construction Law
  • Mechanic’s Lien – Stop Notice
  • Foreclosures
  • Business Law
  • Contract Disputes
  • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
  • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Insurance
  • Lien Stripping Bankruptcy
  • Loan Modifications
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Property Ownership

Recent Posts

  • When and How to Sue After a Car Crash
  • When a Tenant Can Sue a Landlord
  • Does Foreclosure Affect Your Credit?
  • Most Common Causes of Construction Accidents

Follow Us

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

Contact our offices

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
6800 Indiana Avenue, Suite 220
Riverside, CA 92506
Phone: (951) 221-4744
Fax: (951) 222-2122
10.0Mark Albert Mellor

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC © 2021. All Rights Reserved.