## Facts

- A 16-year-old defendant was charged with two murders and an assault with intent to commit murder arising from separate incidents in Compton, California.
- In a shopping-center parking lot, the defendant approached a woman seated in her car, held a gun to her head, ordered her out, and the gun discharged, wounding her; he fled.
- Several days later, a married couple was found shot to death in the back room of their feed store; the cash register was empty and coins were scattered.
- Ballistics evidence linked the bullet from the assault victim and bullets recovered from the murder victims to the same firearm.
- The defendant was arrested and taken to the police station for booking and questioning.
- During booking, the defendant’s father arrived at the station and asked to see him; police refused.
- After being advised of Miranda rights, the defendant was interrogated; during questioning he asked to see his parents, police denied the request, and questioning continued.
- The defendant then made incriminating statements that the prosecution introduced at trial over objection.
- A jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder on both murder counts and simple assault as a lesser included offense on the assault count; the court imposed concurrent sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor’s request to see his parents during custodial interrogation constitutes an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege under Miranda requiring police to stop questioning.
2. Whether armed robbery may serve as the predicate felony for first-degree felony murder, or instead merges with the homicide under California’s merger doctrine.
3. Whether, and to what extent, voluntariness of a confession must be determined by the jury after the trial judge rules on admissibility.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the confession was obtained after the defendant invoked his rights by requesting to see his parents and police continued interrogation.
- The court held that a juvenile’s request to see parents during custodial interrogation must be treated like an adult’s request for counsel: interrogation must cease.
- The court rejected the defendant’s merger challenge and held that armed robbery is an independent felony that can support a felony-murder instruction.
- The court reaffirmed that the trial judge determines admissibility and voluntariness of a confession as a threshold matter; a separate jury determination is not required once the confession is admitted.

## Legal Principles

- When a suspect in custody indicates, in any manner, that he does not wish to be interrogated without assistance, police must cease questioning under Miranda.
- For juveniles, a request to see a parent during custodial interrogation may constitute an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege comparable to a request for counsel.
- Statements obtained after such an invocation, without a valid subsequent waiver, are inadmissible; admitting them is reversible error if prejudicial.
- California’s felony-murder merger doctrine bars using assaultive felonies that are not independent of the homicide as the predicate felony, but does not bar using robbery because it has an objective independent of inflicting injury (taking property).
- The trial court is the primary decision-maker on the threshold admissibility/voluntariness of confessions; the jury retains its ordinary role in assessing weight and credibility of admitted statements.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the convictions because police continued questioning a juvenile after he asked to see his parents, rendering his confession inadmissible under Miranda; it also clarified that armed robbery does not merge with homicide and may support first-degree felony murder, and that voluntariness is decided initially by the judge, not by a required separate jury finding.


People v. Burton, 6 Cal. 3d 375, 491 P.2d 793 (Cal. 1971)