Opinion
December 21, 1970
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, County of Queens, dated June 2, 1970, which adjudged appellant a juvenile delinquent and ordered him placed on probation for one year. Order reversed, on the law and on the facts; the charge that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute burglary in the third degree (Penal Law, § 140.20) is dismissed; and a new adjudicatory hearing is directed with respect to the charge that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law, § 165.40). In our opinion, the initial admission, that the television set was that of Pablo Lopez, was not made in a setting requiring Miranda warnings ( People v. Rodney P. [ Anonymous], 21 N.Y.2d 1). It was correct not to suppress that admission. However, immediately after making this statement appellant was placed in custody. The record shows that it was after this arrest that appellant told Detective Ludwig where he (appellant) and Charles had put the set; the boys showed Ludwig the rooftop location of the set and the ring; Ludwig retrieved both items; and the boys were taken to the complainant's house and to the station house. The post-arrest statements made by appellant and the television set and ring should have been suppressed because it was not established that all four Miranda warnings had been given to appellant; and the record shows noncompliance with section 724 FCT of the Family Court Act ( Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Matter of Aaron D., 30 A.D.2d 183; Matter of William L., 29 A.D.2d 182). Appellant's pre-arrest statement, that the television set was that of Pablo Lopez, is not sufficient to warrant a finding that beyond a reasonable doubt appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute burglary in the third degree. However, a new adjudicatory hearing is warranted to determine whether the legally admissible evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge with respect to criminal possession of stolen goods in the third degree. Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.