☢ test - Í

induce him to sign the waiver form. The interview itself lasted only fifteen or twenty minutes, and police did not employ any tactics to pressure or coerce Williams into giving a statement. Police ceased all questioning the moment that Williams’s mother asked for an attorney. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly concluded that the videotaped statement was made voluntarily and was therefore admissible. Hanifa, supra, 269 Ga. at 805(3).” Accord, Swain v. State , 285 Ga.App. 550, 647 S.E.2d 88 (May 25, 2007); Norris (September 24, 2007), above ; In re: E.J., 292 Ga.App. 69, 663 S.E.2d 411 (June 18, 2008). Stone v. State, 271 Ga.App. 748, 610 S.E.2d 684 (February 22, 2005). Statement of 15-year old defendant with eighth- grade education and IQ of 89 held to be admissible. “Obtaining permission from the father to interview Stone, two policemen read Stone his Miranda rights and interrogated him alone for 27 minutes (all of which was recorded on audiotape), during which time Stone confessed to more than 70 acts of oral and anal intercourse with [his] younger brother. Stone stated that most of the acts took place after Stone turned 13, with the most recent act occurring only weeks prior to the interview. Police also questioned Stone about alleged acts of intercourse with a young girl, which Stone vehemently denied. When police refused to believe him about the young girl, Stone invoked his right to terminate the questioning. Stone returned home with his father. Three days later, police arrested Stone on multiple charges of aggravated child molestation” Riley factors (see below) weighing in favor of admissibility of defendant’s statement here: “Stone … gave detailed narrative responses to the questions, not monosyllabic answers;” “Stone exhibited a working knowledge of his rights when he affirmatively terminated the interview;” “Stone made no request to see or speak with any relatives, friends, or an attorney.” “Contrary to Stone’s argument, it was not necessary that Stone’s father be separately advised of Stone’s Miranda rights. [Cit.]” Woodward v. State, 277 Ga. 49, 586 S.E.2d 330 (September 15, 2003). Riley factors on admissibility of statements by minors don’t apply to defendant 17 years old. Accord, Engle v. State , 290 Ga.App. 396, 659 S.E.2d 795 (March 21, 2008) ( Engle overruled on other grounds, Watson v. State , 297 Ga. 718, 777 S.E.2d 677 (September 14, 2015)); Robertson v. State , 297 Ga.App. 228, 676 S.E.2d 871 (March 31, 2009). Gonzales v. State, 261 Ga.App. 366, 582 S.E.2d 524 (May 22, 2003). Nine factors to consider in determining whether a juvenile “knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent,” from Riley v. State , 237 Ga. 124, 226 S.E.2d 922 (1976): “[T]he age of the accused; the education of the accused; the knowledge of the accused as to the substance of the charge and nature of his rights to consult with an attorney; whether the accused was held incommunicado or allowed to consult with relatives or an attorney; whether the accused was interrogated before or after formal charges had been filed; methods used in interrogation; length of interrogation; whether the accused refused to voluntarily give statements on prior occasions; and whether the accused repudiated an extrajudicial statement at a later date.” “But, even after considering the nine factors, the trial court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights.” Johnson v. State, 261 Ga.App. 98, 581 S.E.2d 715 (May 2, 2003). “Police failure to comply with the juvenile code’s detention requirements does not automatically exclude a custodial statement by the juvenile. ‘The issue is whether there was a knowing and intelligent waiver by [the defendant] of his constitutional rights in making the incriminating statement, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.’ The factors that a court must consider include: The age of the accused; the education of the accused; the knowledge of the accused as to the substance of the charge and nature of his rights to consult with an attorney; whether the accused was held incommunicado or allowed to consult with relatives or an attorney; whether the accused was interrogated before or after formal charges had been filed; methods used in interrogation; length of interrogation; whether accused refused to voluntarily give statements on prior occasions; and whether accused repudiated an extrajudicial statement at a later date.” A 16-year-old 10 th grader “was of sufficient age and education level to understand his waiver of rights.” Accord, Howard v. State , 334 Ga.App. 7, 778 S.E.2d 19 (September 25, 2015). Attaway v. State , 244 Ga.App. 5, 534 S.E.2d 580 (May 12, 2000). Rape and burglary convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted 15-year old’s custodial statement. “While it is true that Attaway gave his confession outside the presence of a family member, we have rejected a per se exclusionary rule for statements given in such situations. Nor does failure to adhere to the juvenile code in detaining a child render inadmissible any ensuing incriminating statements. See OCGA § 15–11–19; Lattimore v. State, 265 Ga. 102, 104(2)(b), 454 S.E.2d 474 (1995).” Other Riley/Lattimore f actors favored admission. 17. MIRANDA WARNING, FORM OF