AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Child-Appellant was adjudicated delinquent following a confession, which he argued was coerced due to the officer's promises of help and suggestions that no problems would result from the confession. The Child-Appellant also challenged the denial of his request for instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication, arguing that his confession was involuntary due to his minor status, chaotic and unstable home life, and the absence of counsel or a parent during the confession.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that his confession was coerced by the officer's promises of help and suggestions that no problems would result from the confession. Contended that his minor status, chaotic and unstable home life, and the absence of counsel or a parent during the confession should result in the suppression of his confession. Also, renewed his challenge to the denial of his request for instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Child-Appellant's confession was coerced by the officer's promises of help and suggestions that no problems would result from the confession.
• Whether the Child-Appellant's minor status, chaotic and unstable home life, and the absence of counsel or a parent during the confession should compel a different result in the suppression of his confession.
• Whether the Child-Appellant was entitled to instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, rejecting the Child-Appellant's principal assertion of error regarding the coercion of his confession and the challenge to the denial of his request for instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication.

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (ATTREP, J., and DUFFY, J., concurring): The court found that the officer's statements did not constitute an express promise of leniency, which would have rendered the confession involuntary. Instead, these statements were considered as part of the totality of the circumstances, which did not compel the suppression of the confession. The court also noted that the Child-Appellant's minor status, chaotic and unstable home life, and the absence of counsel or a parent during the confession were relevant considerations but did not compel a different result. The court distinguished this case from State v. Talayumptewa, where explicit promises were made to reduce or not bring charges, which was not the situation in the present case. Finally, the court remained unpersuaded by the Child-Appellant's challenge to the denial of his request for instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication, noting that the evidence did not support the defense and that it was inapplicable to a general intent crime (paras 3-8).