State of Arkansas v. S.G. (Juvenile)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
07-1081
Opinion Delivered May
APPELLANT,
VS.
S.G. (JUVENILE),
APPELLEE,
8, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD
DIVISION, NO. JD2007-1279,
HON. JOYCE WILLIAMS WARREN,
JUDGE,
APPEAL DISMISSED.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
The State of Arkansas brings an interlocutory appeal under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3 seeking
review of a decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Juvenile Division, suppressing S.G.’s
custodial statement. We hold that the appeal fails to comply with Rule 3.
The State’s
interlocutory appeal is dismissed. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2 (b)(1).
At a hearing to determine whether S.G.’s alleged misconduct should be handled under
Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction,1 the State attempted to introduce S.G.’s custodial statement.
S.G. objected, asserting that the statement was taken in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27317 (Repl. 2002). More specifically, S.G. asserted that his waiver of his right to counsel was
not valid because a person holding legal custody was not present as required by section 9-27317. The circuit court suppressed the statement.
1
See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-27-501–9-27-510 (Repl. 2002).
Facts
When S.G. was two, his aunt was granted custody and guardianship of S.G. by a circuit
court in Tennessee. He then lived with his aunt in Tennessee. Three months prior to the
incident for which S.G. was arrested and questioned in the present case, he moved from
Tennessee to Little Rock and lived with his grandmother. At all times relevant to this case,
S.G.’s aunt held legal guardianship and legal custody of S.G. under the Tennessee circuit court
order. His grandmother had filed a petition seeking custody as of the time of the hearing at
issue; however, no evidence was offered to show that any action had been taken on that
petition. S.G. was arrested in the presence of his grandmother and taken to the police station.
His grandmother accompanied him there and was present when S.G. was questioned.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-317
On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred in interpreting section 9-27-317
(h)(2)(A) (Repl. 2002). This section provides, “When a custodial parent, guardian, or custodian
cannot be located or is located and refuses to go to the place where the juvenile is being held,
counsel shall be appointed for the juvenile.” The State asserts that the circuit court found that
this language sets a “priority list” and ruled that “the police could not skip the guardian aunt
to rely on the custodian grandmother’s presence.” We disagree that the circuit court made this
finding and ruling.
The record reveals that the circuit court ruled that section 9-27-
317(h)(2)(A) requires police to seek out a person who holds legal custody of the juvenile
whether that person is a parent, a guardian, or a custodian.
The discussion in the circuit court and on this appeal centers on whether the facts
-2-
07-1081
showed that S.G.’s grandmother was a “custodian.” 2 The State argues that “the circuit court
erred by concluding that Appellee’s statement had to be excluded because his guardian aunt was
not present, although his custodian grandmother was.” The discussion in the hearing below
concerned, among other things, the time that S.G. lived with his grandmother, how long he
had lived with his grandmother, that she had filed a petition to assume guardianship, that S.G.
had moved to Little Rock to live with his grandmother, that he was in her physical custody,
as well as facts concerning the aunt’s and the grandmother’s relationship to S.G. The State
argues about whether S.G’s grandmother was a “custodian,” which is a question of fact not
subject to appeal by the State under Rule 3.
An interlocutory appeal under Rule 3 must concern the interpretation of the law, and
it must involve the correct and uniform administration of justice. State v. Brooks, 360 Ark. 499,
202 S.W.3d 508 (2005). The correct and uniform administration of justice is at issue when the
question presented is solely a question of law independent of the facts in the case appealed. See,
e.g., State v. Hart, 329 Ark. 582, 952 S.W.2d 138 (1997). Where the appeal relies on facts
unique to the case, the appeal will not lie. Hart, supra. The circuit court’s decision in the
present case required it to review unique circumstances and decide mixed question of law and
fact; therefore, we must conclude that the correct and uniform administration of justice is not
at issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Hart, 329 Ark. at 585, 952 S.W.2d at 139.
Appeal dismissed.
CORBIN, J., not participating.
2
The term “custodian” is defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(14) (Repl. 2002).
-3-
07-1081
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.