A Pennsylvania court has reversed the decision to squash a teenage boy's admission to a sex act with another minor.
In a Wednesday ruling, a Superior Court panel lifted a suppression put on the 14-year-old's confession that he, along with his twin brother, had engaged in unspecified sexual misconduct with a 9-year-old girl who lived in a neighboring apartment in northern Pennsylvania.
According to court records, the boy's mother had been informed by his brother and sister about the incident in April 2015.
After confronting both of her sons, identified only as N.B. and D.B., they admitted to the act and the mother reported the boys' actions to the school district.
- RELATED STORIES
- Court: Pennsylvania ban on switchblades doesn't violate Second Amendment
- Lawyer's pants literally catch on fire — during an arson case
- Allentown man convicted of not filing taxes over 'mark of the beast'
Bradford Police Lieutenant Steve Caskey requested interviews with the boys, and both confessed to the alleged sexual misconduct to police.
In November, an attorney for N.B. filed a motion to suppress the boy's confession because he didn't fully understand his Miranda rights or the potential consequences of his admission.
The motion was granted by McKean County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chris Hauser, who determined that N.B. "truly did not understand the consequences" of his confession and "was compelled to testify by his mother."
The state appealed the decision, and the Superior Court panel voted 2-1 to reverse the suppression ruling. In his majority opinion, Judge Eugene Strassburger wrote that the mother was acting lawfully as an "interested adult."
Strassburger acknowledged that, based on testimony, N.B. did not have a clear understanding of the potential consequences of confessing. Additionally, the mother did know her son's admission could result in criminal charges, although "not to the extent" to which she knows now.
But when determining whether a confession has been coerced, the courts are constrained to considering the methods of interrogators, Judge Strassburger.
As evidenced in the recorded police interviews, Lieutenant Caskey did not act inappropriately while interrogating N.B.
"Rather, the record reveals quite the opposite," Strassburger wrote, noting that Caskey maintained a "calm and cool manner during questioning."
"Here, Mother brought Appellee to the police station and advised him to tell the truth," Strassburger wrote. "However, these actions cannot be reasonably interpreted to rise to the level of coercion such that suppression is warranted."
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Carl Solano pointed out that both brothers had filed for suppression, but Judge Hauser only granted N.B.'s request because he was convinced the boy did not "intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly give his statements."
Solano also argued that the reason for N.B.'s admission does not change the fact that he didn't understand his rights in the first place.
"That N.B.’s mistaken belief was influenced by his mother’s parental oversight does not make his misunderstanding of his constitutional rights any less true," Solano wrote. "Nor does it make his statements any more 'intelligent,' 'voluntary,' or 'knowing.'"
With the suppression on N.B.'s confession lifted, the case has been remanded for further proceedings.