United States v. IMM, No. 11-10317 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, twelve years old at the time of the offense, appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his six year old cousin. The court concluded that the certification that the government filed in the district court met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 5032 by certifying that "the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency," even though it was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government's substantial federal interest in this case. Guided by the United States v. Kim factors, considering the totality of the circumstances of defendant's detention, and taking into account defendant's status as a juvenile, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave the police station. Therefore, defendant was "in custody" during his interrogation by the detective. Defendant was never read his Miranda rights and his inculpatory statements during his interrogation by the detective must be suppressed. Defendant's younger brother, who was seven at the time of trial and five at the time of the offense, was competent to testify as a witness. The evidence at trial, including defendant's inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The court reversed and remanded, however, because the inculpatory statements were obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights and should have been suppressed.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed a criminal judgment and remanded in a case in which a juvenile was convicted of sexually abusing his six year old cousin. Rejecting the defendant’s contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction, the panel held that the government met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 5032 by certifying that “the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency,” even though the certification was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government’s substantial federal interest in this case. The panel held that the district court did not err in allowing a seven year old child to testify. Regarding the defendant’s argument that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant penetrated the victim’s anus, the panel held that the evidence at trial, including the defendant’s inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The panel reversed and remanded because the defendant’s inculpatory statements should have been suppressed, where the defendant, who was not Mirandized, was “in custody” while questioned by a detective.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.