## Facts

- Property owned by a bank—a drilling rig truck and a trencher—was vandalized in Dickinson, North Dakota, causing damage exceeding $2,000.
- Police received a tip identifying J.D.Z., a minor, as a possible suspect or witness.
- A police youth bureau officer went to J.D.Z.’s home to question him about the vandalism; J.D.Z., his mother, and his stepfather were present in the living room.
- The officer began questioning and challenged J.D.Z.’s truthfulness; the stepfather also accused J.D.Z. of lying.
- The officer told J.D.Z. he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions.
- The stepfather then took over questioning, insisting the questions would be answered and that J.D.Z. would tell the truth; J.D.Z. confessed to participating in the vandalism with another minor.
- In the juvenile delinquency proceeding, the juvenile court suppressed the confession as obtained in violation of statutory and constitutional rights.
- After suppressing the confession, the juvenile court found insufficient corroborating evidence and dismissed the delinquency petition.
- The State appealed the suppression ruling and dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile’s confession obtained during a police-initiated home interview—where a stepparent continued the questioning in the officer’s presence—was admissible under applicable juvenile-interrogation statutes and constitutional safeguards.
2. Whether, once the confession was excluded, the remaining evidence sufficiently corroborated the alleged delinquent conduct to permit adjudication.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s suppression of the confession.
- The court treated the confession as the product of an interrogation sufficiently connected to police questioning to trigger statutory and constitutional protections.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the delinquency petition because, without the confession, the State lacked sufficient corroborating evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Courts evaluate juvenile questioning by substance rather than labels; police cannot avoid juvenile-interrogation safeguards by allowing a parent or stepparent to elicit statements during a police-initiated interview in the officer’s presence.
- A juvenile confession must be excluded if obtained in violation of statutory protections governing juvenile proceedings or constitutional requirements of lawful warnings and voluntariness.
- A delinquency adjudication may not rest on an inadmissible confession; if remaining evidence does not sufficiently corroborate the allegations, dismissal is required.

## Conclusion

The court upheld suppression of a juvenile’s home confession obtained during a police-initiated interview where the stepparent’s questioning operated as part of the police interrogation, and it affirmed dismissal of the petition because the State lacked adequate corroborating evidence once the confession was excluded.


In re J.D.Z., 431 N.W.2d 272 (N.D. 1988)