In re Art T.
People v. Art T.
Opinion
Opinion
Feuer, J.
INTRODUCTION
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, we hold that a 13-year-old boy’s statement — “Could I have an attorney? Because that’s not me” — made during the course of a custodial interrogation after watching a video of a shooting was an unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ] (Miranda) and its progeny. In reaching this conclusion, we apply a standard of whether a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances known to the officer or that would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, including the juvenile’s age, would understand the statement by the juvenile to be a request for an attorney. We conclude that a reasonable officer would have understood the juvenile’s statement in this case to be a request for an attorney.
The juvenile court should have granted the motion to suppress the statements subsequently elicited by police. Because the Miranda error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ] (Chapman), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.