PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT OR 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION On September 21, 2023, the petitioning Presentment Agency filed a Petition pursuant to Article 3 of the Family Court Act, alleging, inter alia, that the Respondent, Ethan Vance, committed sexual acts contrary to the Penal Law, which acts if committed by someone older than eighteen (18) years old would constitute a crime. A Motion, having been filed with this Court on October 23, 2023, by counsel for the Respondent, seeking, inter alia, pre-trial discovery and pre-trial Huntley, Sandoval and Ventimiglia hearings; an Answer, having been filed with this Court on November 1, 2023, by counsel for the Presentment Agency, the Court issued an Order on November 3, 2023, granting the Respondent’s request for discovery and request for a pre-trial Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of the Respondent’s statement, identified in the Voluntary Disclosure Form as the “conversation between the Respondent, the Respondent’s mother and Detective Hande” on July 17, 2023, inside of the Bronx Child Abuse Squad Offices. The pre-trial Huntley hearing commenced on April 1, 2024, and concluded on May 7, 2024. During the course of the hearing, the Court heard testimony from New York City Police Department Detective Craig Hande of the Special Victims Child Abuse Squad and credits that testimony. Throughout his testimony, Detective Hande maintained eye contact, testified with a calm demeanor and was forthright. The Court has also reviewed and considered the following exhibits: Presentment Agency’s Exhibit 1: Transcript of the July 17, 2023, interview of the Respondent; Presentment Agency’s Exhibit 2: Video of the July 17, 2023, interview of the Respondent; Presentment Agency’s Exhibit 3: Photo of the door to the Bronx Child Abuse Squad; Presentment Agency’s Exhibits 4-6: Photographs of the Juvenile Room located in the Bronx Child Abuse Squad; Presentment Agency’s Exhibit 7: Photograph of the prisoner holding cells in the Bronx Child Abuse Squad; Presentment Agency’s Exhibits 8 and 9; Photographs of the Respondent, his mother and father, and Detective Hande seated in the interview room on July 17, 2023; Presentment Agency’s Exhibit 10: A copy of the Juvenile Miranda Document signed and dated July 17, 2023. The Respondent did not present any testimony or other evidence at the Huntley hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties gave oral summations and the Court adjourned for its decision. Having reviewed and considered the testimony and other evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact and renders the following conclusions of law: On July 17, 2023, Detective Hande called the Respondent’s mother to inform her that there was an active investigation pending regarding her son, Ethan Vance, and to ask her to bring her son to the Detective’s office. Around 11:00 AM that day, the Respondent, his mother, and his father arrived at the Bronx Special Victim’s Child Abuse Squad and were greeted by Detective Hande who took them to the Juvenile Room. Because there was no video monitoring system in place in the Juvenile Room, Detective Hande escorted the Respondent, his mother, and his father to an interview room which he described as similar to the Juvenile Room except for the fact that there was no window on the door of the interview room but, instead, a tinted and shaded window on the far wall. A review of the photographs and video in evidence confirms that the two rooms were substantially the same. Once seated in the interview room, Detective Hande informed the Respondent and his parents that he wanted to discuss the investigation but that he had to read Miranda warnings first. He explained that he was going to read the Juvenile Miranda Warnings from a document to the Respondent and his parents, and he provided a copy of the Juvenile Miranda Warnings document to the Respondent and to his mother so they could follow along. Detective Hande’s testimony that he read the Juvenile Miranda Warnings one at a time in a calm and an assertive demeanor was corroborated by the video in evidence. Detective Hande confirmed that he took time after each warning to ask the Respondent and the Respondent’s mother whether they understood what was just said. After the Detective confirmed that the Respondent and his mother understood each of the Juvenile Miranda Warnings, the Respondent and his mother wrote their initials on the document to indicate that they understood what was just read. After the Detective completed the Juvenile Miranda Warnings, the Respondent signed the document, his mother signed the document, and Detective Hande signed and annotated the document with the date and time. Following the reading of the Miranda warnings, the Respondent and his mother agreed to speak with the detective1. The interview commenced and the Respondent answered various questions posed by Detective Hande with his mother and father present in the room. The Respondent did not ask for an attorney to be present. At various moments during the interview, the Detective left the room (including, in one instance, to escort the Respondent’s father out of the room at the latter’s request) and the Respondent and his mother spoke to one another. During one of those moments, the Respondent was heard asking his mother where the microphone was located and both the Respondent and his mother stated to each other that they were being watched and listened to while the Detective left the room. Despite demonstrating an awareness that their conversation was not private, the Respondent and his mother continued to talk to each other openly and without any apparent effort to conceal what they were sharing with one another. The transcript of the interview and the video recording in evidence confirmed the events as testified to by Detective Hande. The Detective asked the Respondent questions about the allegations, at times asking the same question different ways, and confronted the Respondent with audio recordings made by the complainant. Based on the Court’s review of the interview video, it is apparent that the Detective posed questions clearly and calmly. Neither the Respondent nor his mother asked to speak with an attorney during the interview, nor did either express an unwillingness to continue speaking with the Detective. The Respondent continued to respond to questions, made statements to his mother when the Detective left the room, and even voluntarily shared some of those statements with the Detective once he returned to the room. At a Huntley hearing, it is well established that it is the Presentment Agency’s burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements made and challenged by the Respondent were voluntarily made [see People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973 (1985), In the Matter of Jimmy D., 912 N.Y.S.2d 537 (2010); People v. Anderson, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625 (1977); People v. Huntley, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, (1965)]. Moreover, Article 3 of the Family Court Act affords statutory safeguards to juveniles which include requirements for parental notification, parental presence during interrogation, parental receipt of Miranda warnings, and use of a special room for interrogation (see Family Court Act §305.2). Courts have held that a juvenile’s statements to police are admissible in delinquency proceedings as long as the juvenile was only questioned after the police gave Miranda warnings to both the juvenile and his parent, the police complied with the requirements of FCA §305.2, and the juvenile’s statement was voluntary [see In re Johnny H., 975 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1st Dept 2013)]. Here, the Presentment Agency has met its burden by establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements made by the Respondent during his July 17, 2023, interview were made voluntarily and that the Respondent knowingly and intelligently waived his rights by making such statements. The Presentment Agency has also proven that the police complied with the statutory requirements under FCA §305.2. The credible testimony of Detective Hande, paired with the transcript and video of the interview itself clearly establish that the Respondent heard and understood the Miranda warnings read to him and provided to him in writing by the Detective. It is also evident that the Respondent’s mother was notified of the interview, was present for the entire interview, and received the Miranda warnings in satisfaction of FCA §305.2.2 Moreover, the factual record establishes the voluntariness of the Respondent’s statements. No threats or promises were made in order to secure the Respondent’s statements, and no other elements of coercion were brought to bear that would render the statement involuntary. Indeed, the Respondent tried to minimize his role in the events at issue, further substantiating the statement’s voluntariness. Finally, despite arguments by the Respondent’s counsel that the Respondent’s mother exerted an undue influence over the Respondent and that she ultimately took on a “police function”, this Court disagrees. The record before the Court does not support the conclusion that the Respondent’s mother pressed or coerced the Respondent in any away to suggest she acted in a manner consistent with any function other that of a concerned parent. Lastly, the Court turns to the issue of statements made by the Respondent to his mother outside the Detective’s presence but while being recorded in the interview room. Courts have identified instances when statements made by a respondent to his parent during a recorded interview outside the presence of law enforcement were privileged and thus should be suppressed. Such a determination depends on the nature of the statements made to the parent and the manner in which the statements were made. In the matter of People v. Kemp, the respondent began speaking to his father after the detective left the room and the respondent’s father told him not to speak because there were cameras in the room. Despite that warning, the respondent continued to speak to his father but made efforts to prevent the conversation from being overheard or recorded by moving closer to his father and covering his face with his hands. Also, the court determined that the respondent’s statements at issue in Kemp were made in an attempt to get advice from his father. There, the court suppressed those statements, finding that the parent-child privilege was not waived because of the effort to conceal the statements and the nature of the statements [see People v. Kemp, 183 N.Y.S.3d 220 (4th Dept. 2023)]. In the instant matter, the transcript and video in evidence reflect that the Respondent made statements to his mother outside the Detective’s presence knowing he was being recorded by video and audio equipment with no effort to conceal those statements from the recording equipment. The fact that the Respondent pointed out to his mother that they were being recorded but nonetheless made statements to his mother supports the conclusion that those particular statements were not intended to be made to his mother in confidence. Moreover, the Respondent repeated some of those statements to the Detective, almost verbatim, when the Detective returned to the room3; thus there clearly was no intention for those statements to have been confidential between him and his mother. Finally, the statements at issue did not resemble those described by the court in People v. Kemp as those of a child looking to his parent for help or advice, but rather were conversational statements between the Respondent and his mother about the situation as a whole, their feelings about the complainant and the implausibility of her allegations. For the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s Huntley motion is denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: June 4, 2024
