State v. McGriff

A 16-year-old, Jalen McGriff, is charged with murder and other crimes in the death of his infant daughter. Before trial, a Clinch County judge threw out three statements he gave to Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents on March 5, 6 and 11, 2020. The State appealed. The Supreme Court of Georgia first held the State had given up its argument that the hearing should never have been held, because it agreed to go forward. For the March 5 and 6 interviews, which took place at a Florida hospital, the court found the judge's stated findings did not show a reasonable person would have felt in custody, but it could not tell whether the judge also rejected the agents' testimony, so it sent those back. For March 11, the court found McGriff understood and validly waived his rights, and reversed.

A trial judge's custody finding must rest on findings about the factors courts normally weigh, such as whether the person was free to leave and restrained, and age alone should not carry undue weight. Where findings are inadequate, the case goes back. A 16-year-old who was read his rights and signed a waiver validly waived them without a parent present.

The ruling clarifies how Georgia trial judges must explain decisions about whether young people were in custody when questioned by police. It also confirms that a teenager's signed waiver can stand without a parent present. Prosecutors may now use the March 11 statement at trial.

Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded

1. The State's claim that no hearing should have been held failed because the State agreed to proceed with it. Under the plain-error test, which requires an error that was not intentionally given up, that agreement affirmatively waived the issue.
2. Miranda warnings (the right to remain silent and to a lawyer) are required only when a person is in custody, judged by how a reasonable person in his position would see things. Courts weigh location, duration, restraints, and whether he could leave.
3. The judge's findings (uniformed armed agent, private room, no parent asked, crossing state lines) were not enough by themselves, and the judge seemed to give age too much weight. The judge made no findings on whether McGriff was free to leave or restrained.
4. Because it was unclear whether the judge implicitly disbelieved the agents' testimony, the court could not meaningfully review the March 5 and 6 rulings and sent them back for further findings.
5. For March 11, the court assumed custody and applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test. The recording and signed waiver showed the rights were explained and understood, and a parent's absence is not decisive. Later agent comments came after the waiver.

• murder case
• Miranda rights
• juvenile interrogation
• motion to suppress
• GBI interviews