State Ex Rel. J. M. v. Taylor
166 W. Va. 511, 276 S.E.2d 199 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juvenile's waiver of the constitutional right to counsel is only valid if it is made upon the advice of counsel. An uncounseled waiver is invalid per se, regardless of the presence of a parent or guardian or an inquiry by the court.
Facts:
- G. E., a juvenile just days shy of his eighteenth birthday, was accused of participating in an interstate automobile theft ring.
- At a probation revocation hearing, G. E. and his father were informed of his right to counsel, but both chose to waive it.
- J. M., a sixteen-year-old, was accused of breaking and entering a market with the intent to steal.
- J. M. proceeded through his preliminary, adjudicatory, and dispositional hearings without legal counsel and ultimately pled guilty.
- A. H., aged sixteen, faced multiple petitions filed by his parents alleging assault, forgery, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
- With his father present, A. H. waived his right to counsel. When the court asked if he wanted an attorney, A. H. replied, "Should I?" before declining.
- All three juveniles admitted to the allegations against them without legal representation.
Procedural Posture:
- Separate juvenile petitions were filed against G. E., J. M., and A. H. in West Virginia circuit courts.
- At a probation revocation hearing in the trial court, G. E.'s probation was revoked, and he was committed to the Department of Corrections.
- J. M. pled guilty in the trial court and was committed to the Department of Corrections.
- A. H. pled guilty in the trial court and was adjudicated delinquent.
- All three juveniles, having been adjudicated delinquent without legal representation, filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which consolidated their cases for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juvenile make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their constitutional right to counsel when they do so without first receiving the advice of an attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Harshbarger, Chief Justice
No. A juvenile does not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their constitutional right to counsel without first receiving the advice of an attorney. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in In re Gault, the court affirms that juveniles possess a constitutional right to counsel. While adults may waive this right if the waiver is knowing and intelligent, juveniles are presumed by law to lack the capacity to make such critical legal decisions. The court rejects weaker standards for juvenile waiver, such as the "totality of circumstances" or the mere presence of an "interested adult," because even a well-intentioned parent may not understand the legal complexities involved or may have conflicting interests. The court highlights a fundamental contradiction in the law: a juvenile's right to counsel cannot be waived in civil proceedings involving minor property interests, yet it could be waived in delinquency cases where liberty is at stake. To resolve this, the court establishes a prophylactic rule that a juvenile's waiver of counsel is only valid if made upon the advice of an attorney.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a stringent, bright-line rule for the waiver of counsel in juvenile proceedings in West Virginia, significantly strengthening protections for minors. By rejecting more subjective, fact-intensive standards like the "totality of circumstances," the court created a mandatory procedural safeguard. The ruling effectively makes the right to counsel non-waivable for a juvenile acting alone, ensuring legal consultation before such a critical right is relinquished. This precedent prioritizes the protection of vulnerable defendants over procedural efficiency and aims to prevent uncounseled admissions of guilt in juvenile court.
