Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback

Please join our beta test

Juvenile Age in the Miranda Custody Analysis

Doctrine › Miranda

Leading case

J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011)

How courts have described it

holding that a suspect’s age informs how a person in the suspect’s position “would perceive his or her freedom to leave” when detained by law enforcement

State v. Holler, 944 N.W.2d 339 (S.D. 2020)

holding that courts should consider a youth’s age in determining a Fifth Amendment Miranda issue

State v. K. A. M., 401 P.3d 774 (Or. 2017)

holding that courts should consider a youth’s age in deter- mining a Fifth Amendment Miranda issue

State v. K. A. M. (Or. 2017)

holding that police must consider the age of a juvenile suspect when determining whether the juvenile is in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 2956 (Ohio 2017)

holding that child’s age is relevant, although not necessarily determinative, in as sessing whether a child is in custody

State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B., 302 P.3d 609 (Ariz. 2013)

holding that child’s age is relevant, although not necessarily determinative, in assessing whether a child is in custody

State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B., 302 P.3d 609 (Ariz. 2013)

holding that "the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda "

State v. Saldierna, 775 S.E.2d 326 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015)

About this page

The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.