## Facts

- A juvenile complaint alleged S.H., age 10, caused the drowning death of B.R., age 6, by pushing him into a canal.
- After a schoolyard encounter, S.H. took B.R. by the coat into an alley; B.R. did not return to school or home.
- Police initially questioned S.H. at school (with a vice-principal present) as a witness; S.H. claimed another boy took B.R.
- B.R.’s body was found in a canal; the autopsy indicated drowning and trauma suggesting possible unconsciousness when entering the water.
- Police brought S.H. to headquarters and questioned him intermittently for several hours, including questioning by multiple officers and a polygraph operator.
- S.H. ultimately signed a written statement admitting he pushed B.R. into the canal after leading him to the water’s edge, while denying intent to kill and claiming he thought B.R. could climb out.
- S.H. had limited reading ability; he was not advised he could have a parent or lawyer present, and his parents were not contacted until after the statement was obtained.

## Issues

1. Whether S.H.’s custodial statement was admissible in a juvenile delinquency proceeding as a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.
2. What protections are required when police interrogate a juvenile, including warnings and the role of parents or counsel, under a totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness analysis.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held the statement inadmissible because the State did not prove a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver under the totality of the circumstances.
- The adjudication of delinquency was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings without use of the confession.
- The Court declined to adopt a categorical rule requiring a parent or counsel to be present, but treated the absence of any adult advisor and the failure to promptly notify parents as weighty factors.

## Legal Principles

- The State bears the burden to prove, by the totality of the circumstances, that a juvenile’s waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
- Courts must apply especially careful scrutiny to juvenile confessions, with attention to the child’s age, intelligence, experience, and comprehension.
- Relevant circumstances include the custodial setting; length and character of questioning; clarity of warnings; whether the juvenile understood the right to remain silent and to counsel; and whether a parent, guardian, or other supportive adult was present or promptly notified.
- A signed written statement, without more, does not establish that a young child understood and validly relinquished constitutional protections.

## Conclusion

Because S.H. was a 10-year-old questioned for hours at police headquarters without prompt parental notification or an adult advisor and without proof of meaningful understanding of his rights, the State failed to show a valid waiver; the confession was excluded, requiring reversal of the delinquency adjudication and remand.


State in Int. of S.H., 293 A.2d 181 (N.J. 1972)