determining that there was no prejudice resulting from the circuit court’s admission of a confession at the transfer hearing
How later courts described this case
- determining that there was no prejudice resulting from the circuit court’s admission of a confession at the transfer hearing
- “We have repeatedly held that the crime of rape is by definition a violent offense. . . . Appellant’s argument that the crime of rape, in order to be classified as violent, requires additional threats or physical abuse independent of the rape is wholly without merit.”
- when a young offender is ultimately charged in circuit court, the failure of law enforcement officers to obtain parental consent to waiver of right to counsel, pursuant to § 9-27-317, does not bar admissibility of confession
- idea behind juvenile code was “the notion of offering special protections to juveniles in the hopes of putting them on a separate track ending somewhere other than the Department of Correction”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. Because the confession of Ring may have been admissible if Ring was tried as an adult but would not have been in juvenile court, it was error to admit it for purposes of the juvenile transfer hearing. Regardless, though, the circuit judge made his ruling concerning the seriousness and violence employed in the alleged crime based on the charge brought against Ring — not his confession. As the majority opinion emphasizes, that is enough to sustain a decision not to transfer. Hence, I concur in the affirmance while recognizing the error in allowing the confession into evidence at the hearing.