The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Gallagher
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County Honorable GERALD T. WINIECKI, Judge Presiding.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether respondent, M.W., made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Respondent was arrested on August 16, 1997, and charged with first-degree murder and aggravated arson. The State alleged that, on August 15, 1997, respondent set fire to an apartment building located at 7108 South Rhodes which resulted in the death of a woman, Zulean Wilson. While in custody, respondent made incriminating oral statements. Before trial, respondent filed a motion to suppress the statements on the grounds that his statements (1) were involuntary; and (2) were not made after a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. The trial court, concluding that respondent did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights, suppressed respondent's incriminating statements that he made while in custody. The State appeals that decision.
Until recently, the proper standard of review in Illinois for determining whether a confession was voluntary was the manifestly erroneous standard. See People v. Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d 409, 447, 662 N.E.2d 1328, 1345 (1996). Recently, however, the Illinois Supreme Court, noting that the voluntariness of a confession presents a mixed question of law and fact, held that the ultimate question of the voluntariness of a confession is subject to de novo review. In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37 (2000). The court's decision was based upon the rationale explained in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996), and United States v. D.F., 115 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 1997), which will be discussed later. In view of this recent supreme court case, the parties disagree on which standard of review applies in the instant case.
Subsumed within the question of whether a statement is voluntary, there has always been a two-part analysis, the first part of which concerns itself with the issue of voluntariness within the context of federal constitutional concerns and the second part of which considers whether the Miranda waiver which produced the otherwise "voluntary" statement was knowing and intelligent *fn1 . See, e.g., People v. Bernasco, 138 Ill. 2d 349, 562 N.E.2d 958 (1990) (even though defendant's confession was "voluntary" within the meaning of the fifth and fourteenth amendments (U.S. Const., amends. V, XIV), defendant's voluntary waiver of Miranda rights was invalid because it was not knowing and intelligent). It is clear that an inquiry into a Miranda waiver has "'two distinct dimensions': (1) whether there was a free, uncoerced choice and (2) whether there was awareness of the right and the consequences of abandoning it. [Citations.] " Bernasco, 138 Ill. 2d at 354, 562 N.E.2d at 960. Although the Bernasco court was addressing the continued viability of the second requirement that a waiver be knowing and intelligent, the court explained that "[t]here remains a world of difference between voluntariness and intelligent knowledge." Bernasco, 138 Ill. 2d at 358, 562 N.E.2d at 962.
We believe that, although we now review de novo the ultimate question of the voluntariness of a confession, the issue of whether a Miranda waiver was knowingly and intelligently made remains subject to a discretionary standard of review, i.e., whether the trial court's findings on the issue were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
A federal court has summarized the rationale for the de novo standard of review of the ultimate issue of voluntariness, noting that "Ornelas and D.F. require an appellate court to apply rigorous review of lower court decisions where there is a compelling need for uniformity and clarity in the application of legal principles across courts. [Citations.]" In re Rovell, 194 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 1999). As our supreme court explained:
"A de novo standard of review ensures that our courts of review maintain and clarify the legal principles governing confessions. This, in turn, allows our reviewing courts to develop a uniform body of precedent that will enable police officers to determine, before attempting to obtain confession, what behavior is constitutionally permissible." G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 49-50.
We agree with respondent that this rationale for de novo review of voluntariness determinations does not apply in the instant case, where the issue of whether respondent made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights turns on the capacity of the respondent, not the conduct of the police.
We find additional support for this discretionary standard in the Illinois Supreme Court's own analysis in G.O. The G.O. court noted that the Supreme Court in Ornelas had "cautioned *** that findings of historical fact should be reviewed only for clear error and that reviewing courts must give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by the fact finder." G.O., 191 Ill 2d at 47-48, citing Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 920, 116 S. Ct. at 1663. The court, reiterating this principle, further noted that the seventh circuit, similar to the Supreme Court in Ornelas, had also "emphasized that 'the determination of the historical facts of the case are the proper domain of the trial court and that our review of its findings in that regard will be for clear error.'"G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 49, quoting D.F., 115 F.3d at 419. The G.O. court explained that although the ultimate question of whether a confession was voluntary is reviewed de novo, a reviewing court nonetheless shall "accord great deference to the trial court's factual findings, and *** reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence." G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 50.
As in the present case, the respondent in G.O. asserted that he did not understand his Miranda rights, although in contradistinction to the present case, the trial court there specifically found that the respondent understood those rights. In addressing this claim, the Illinois Supreme Court, although adopting a de novo standard of review on the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of the confession, specifically applied the manifest weight of the evidence standard to the trial court's finding that the respondent understood his Miranda rights. The G.O. court clearly stated as follows: "[A]fter reviewing the record, we are unable to conclude that [the trial court's finding that respondent understood his Miranda rights] is against the manifest weight of the evidence." (Emphasis added.) In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 56. Thus, with respect to the subissue of whether a confession was knowing and intelligent, i.e., whether an individual understood his Miranda rights, the court in G.O. retained the discretionary standard. The necessary implication of this procedure is that the determination of whether a Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent is a question of fact for the trial court. Our supreme court has previously acknowledged this principle. Bernasco, 138 Ill. 2d at 367, 562 N.E.2d at 966 ("Whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and gave his confession remains the key factual question here." (Emphasis added)).
In sum, the recent Illinois Supreme Court decision of In re G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37 (2000), does not require de novo review of the trial court's determination that respondent did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. The discretionary standard applied to this particular subissue of the voluntariness of a confession remains intact. Thus, while the ultimate question of whether respondent's confession was voluntary is subject to de novo review, we shall first consider whether the trial court's finding that respondent's Miranda waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently was against the manifest weight of the evidence. *fn2
With regard to voluntariness, a confession made by a juvenile is generally subject to the same scrutiny as that of a confession made by an adult defendant. People v. Morgan, 306 Ill. App. 3d 616, 629-30, 713 N.E.2d 1203, 1213 (1999). Nevertheless, in the case of a juvenile who is interrogated in the absence of legal counsel, it has been explained that "the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair." (Emphasis added.) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 561, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1458 (1967); see also People v. Prude, 66 Ill. 2d 470, 363 N.E.2d 371 (1977); Morgan, 306 Ill. App. 3d at 630, 713 N.E.2d at 1213. The proper test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the statement was made freely, without compulsion or inducement, with consideration given to the characteristics of the accused as well as the details of the interrogation. People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 289 N.E.2d 601 (1972); In re Lashun H., 284 Ill. App. 3d 545, 550, 672 N.E.2d 331, 335 (1996). Although "voluntariness" in the constitutional sense is distinct ...