State v. Lambert
1997 R.I. LEXIS 325, 1997 WL 805381, 705 A.2d 957 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The validity of a juvenile's waiver of Miranda rights is determined by the totality of the circumstances, and the waiver is not rendered automatically invalid by the absence of an interested adult or the failure of police to inform the juvenile that they could be tried as an adult.
Facts:
- On November 24, 1994, Michael Lambert, two months shy of his eighteenth birthday, and William Page, eighteen, were walking in downtown Providence.
- The two encountered Sylvester Gardiner, a homeless man, and a confrontation ensued.
- Page produced a BB gun belonging to Lambert and forced Gardiner to lie on the ground.
- At Page's direction, Lambert found a rope, which Page then used to hog-tie Gardiner.
- Both Lambert and Page proceeded to savagely beat Gardiner, inflicting fatal injuries.
- Lambert later admitted to police that he procured the rope, kicked Gardiner, and struck him with a broom handle.
Procedural Posture:
- Police apprehended Michael Lambert and questioned him at the police station.
- Lambert was advised of his Miranda rights, which he waived before giving a statement implicating himself in the murder of Sylvester Gardiner.
- Lambert was charged by indictment with murder.
- Lambert filed a pretrial motion in the trial court to suppress his statement to the police, arguing his Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- The trial justice denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Lambert guilty of second-degree murder and committing a crime of violence while armed.
- The trial court denied Lambert's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus ten years.
- Lambert (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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's waiver of their Miranda rights become invalid if the police do not contact an interested adult and do not inform the juvenile that they could be tried as an adult?
Opinions:
Majority - Lederberg, Justice.
No, a juvenile's waiver of Miranda rights is not automatically invalid under these circumstances. The court evaluates the waiver based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it. The court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Fare v. Michael C., which requires consideration of the juvenile’s age, experience, education, intelligence, and capacity to understand the warnings and the consequences of waiver, as well as the presence of an interested adult. The court determined that Lambert, being nearly eighteen, streetwise, and having significant prior experience with the justice system (including representation by counsel and a prior adult conviction), understood his rights. There is no constitutional right for a juvenile to have an adult present during interrogation, nor is there a per se rule requiring police to inform a juvenile of the possibility of being tried as an adult. The police took meticulous steps to ensure Lambert understood his rights, including having him explain each right in his own words, which demonstrated a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible 'totality of the circumstances' standard for evaluating juvenile Miranda waivers in Rhode Island, rejecting the adoption of stricter, per se rules. By declining to require the presence of an interested adult or a specific warning about adult prosecution, the court grants law enforcement significant leeway when interrogating older, more experienced juveniles. The ruling emphasizes a case-by-case analysis, focusing on the individual juvenile's subjective understanding rather than on rigid procedural safeguards, thereby placing the onus on trial courts to carefully scrutinize the specific facts of each interrogation.
