Supreme Court upholds boy’s sexual assault case

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a 12-year-old Manitowoc County boy’s conviction for inappropriately touching a classmate, even though police officers violated the boy’s Miranda rights.

On appeal, the suspect challenged the lack of being informed his Miranda rights. But the high court upheld the conviction in a decision issued Thursday. The court called the admission of the boy’s statement a harmless error, as other evidence sufficiently proved the elements of the offense.

According to the court records, “Kevin,” touched another student’s groin when walking by him in the hall at school. The other boy reported it to his parents and someone at school. The next day, the school’s resource officer removed Kevin from the class and took him to a “small, tight office” with a single door, which remained closed during the interview. In addition to the school’s resource officer, a resource officer from another school who was dressed in full uniform and was armed was present and stood in front of the door.

During questioning, Kevin admitted to accidentally touching the other boy. To determine if Kevin was in custody or felt that he was in custody, the court applied a two-pronged test to determine custody: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave and whether the environment presented inherently coercive pressures similar to a police station interrogation.

Less than an hour later, Kevin was questioned again — this time involving three or four adult authority figures including the two officers and the associate principal in the student services area. This time, the authority figures did much of the talking and told Kevin what they told what happened from the victim and other students.

The state filed a delinquency petition charging Kevin with one count of fourth degree sexual assault. Kevin moved to suppress his statements to officers, arguing the police elicited the statements in violation of Miranda and that his statements were involuntary. The circuit court held a suppression hearing but denied the motion, concluding that Kevin’s statements were admissible because “this was a non-custodial voluntary conversation.”

The circuit court held a bench trial and found Kevin guilty. He appealed his conviction, but the appeals court said there was no Miranda violation because Kevin was not in custody and his statements were voluntary.

In writing for the majority, Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz said, “Because he was under custodial interrogation and was never Mirandized, his statements should have been excluded at trial. However, we hold that admitting his custodial statements was harmless error. Accordingly, we need not address whether his statements were involuntary … We conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational fact finder would have found Kevin delinquent even without his statements while under Miranda custody.”

She further wrote “the questioning in the school resource officer’s office was coercive. A student like Kevin would feel pressured after being sent from class to the schoolhouse equivalent of a station house interrogation room.”

Justice Brian K. Hagedorn filed a concurring opinion but gave a different reasoning why the conviction should be upheld. He was joined by Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Rebecca Grassl Bradley.

“I conclude that the implicit coercive pressures that motivated the Miranda decision are not present in this case. Kevin was not in custody. Therefore, he was not subject to a custodial interrogation, which means the prophylactic Miranda warnings were not necessary. Consequently, there is no Miranda violation and no confession to suppress,” Hagedorn wrote.