Appeals court hears challenge to 17-year-old's postarrest confession and in-court ID in 2018 fatal shooting

An appellate panel heard arguments over whether a 17-year-old's postarrest confession and later in-court identification should have been suppressed in a 2018 homicide case.

Attorney Tyrone Tooten, for the appellant, told the court he was challenging several pretrial rulings and emphasized that the juvenile's confession was involuntary because officers told the teen his mother would not come to the station. Tooten said the way officers characterized the mother's responsiveness left the juvenile with the impression she "didn't care," which he said infected the voluntariness analysis under the totality of the circumstances.

The state, represented by Ronald Coleman, said the record shows officers attempted to contact the mother, that the defendant waived his Miranda rights at the station and acknowledged involvement in the shooting, and that the trial court properly weighed the relevant factors. Coleman summarized the underlying charges, saying the shooting occurred Oct. 9, 2018, and that police developed the defendant as a suspect and brought him in for questioning.

The panel repeatedly pressed the defense to point to factors beyond the mother's absence that would render a signed waiver and a confession involuntary. One judge observed that "a juvenile is not required to have a parent during the questioning or interrogation," and asked which other factors (age, education, length of detention, deprivation of food or bathroom access, intoxication or mental impairment) supported suppression in this record.

Tooten replied that the specific wording conveyed to the juvenile'that his mother was not coming or effectively had "given up" on him'was itself a circumstance that affected voluntariness, particularly combined with the juvenile's youth and limited familiarity with Miranda. The defense also raised a separate argument about an alleged five-hour detention and whether the state could justify both questioning the juvenile despite telling him his mother had declined to be present and then holding him for an extended period.

Coleman told the court detective testimony indicated the mother initially said she would "find out what I can work out, but y'all can go ahead and talk to the defendant," and that she later testified inconsistently about her exact words. The state argued the trial court's written order found the waiver and statement voluntary and that any out-of-court photographic identification provided by a witness did not fatally taint the later in-court identification.

The panel also questioned whether the defense preserved the in-court-identification argument in the motion for new trial; Tooten said he would double-check and acknowledged the issue could be deemed waived. The parties debated the relevance of earlier lineup procedure and whether a witness's prior identification from social media materially undermined the in-court identification.

After both sides finished, the court took the case under advisement. The panel did not issue a ruling at argument.

The appeals court record cited during argument includes the trial court's written suppression order and testimony from a detective identified in the record as Detective Elrod.