No. 3--02--0716

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2003

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court:

The State petitioned that the minor, Donald R., Jr., beadjudged delinquent for having committed the offenses ofaggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12--16(c)(2)(i)(West 2000)) (count I) and sexual exploitation of a child (720ILCS 5/11--9.1(a)(2) (West 2000)) (count II). The minor's motionto suppress his confession was denied. His motions for directedverdicts were granted regarding count I, but denied regardingcount II. The minor was adjudged to be delinquent based on countII and was committed to two years' probation. Additionally, hewas to register as a sex offender and to obtain counseling asconditions of his probation. On appeal, the minor argues that(1) the directed verdict rulings were inconsistent; (2) hisconfession should have been suppressed; (3) the State failed toprove the elements of count II beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4)the terms of his probation are excessive. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In its juvenile petition, the State alleged that the minorcommitted aggravated criminal sexual abuse by having a younggirl, M.Z., touch his penis and that he committed sexualexploitation of a child by exposing his penis to M.Z. Testimonyduring the adjudication established that the minor was 16 yearsold and M.Z. was 6 years old at the time of the incident.

At the adjudication on December 6, 2001, Detective DonnaNicholson testified that she was a juvenile officer with thePeoria police department. Nicholson had interviewed M.Z. onFebruary 11, 2001. M.Z. told Nicholson that about three weeksbefore the interview, M.Z. was in the basement of her uncle'shome when the minor came into the basement to visit the uncle. While M.Z.'s uncle was in the shower, the minor pulled his pantsand underwear down past his knees and showed "his private part"to her. M.Z. said that the minor squeezed and held her hand, andmade her touch "his private part." When the minor heard that thegirl's uncle had finished showering, he pulled his pants upbefore the uncle came out of the bathroom. The minor threatenedto beat M.Z. up if she told anyone what had happened. M.Z. wentupstairs and told her grandparents about the incident shortlyafter it occurred.

At the adjudication, M.Z. testified that the minor showedher his "private." She denied, however, that the minor made hertouch him. M.Z. could remember that the incident happened "kindof long ago," but could not remember exactly when it happened. She denied that the minor had threatened her. M.Z. recalled thatshe had told someone about the incident, but could not rememberwhom she told. Later, she testified that she told a policeofficer about the event, but could not remember if the officerwas a man or a woman.

Nicholson said that on the evening of February 21, 2001, sheand Detective Terry Esser went to the minor's home in anapartment complex. The officers spoke with the minor's parents. Initially, the officers told the parents that they wanted tospeak with the minor about an altercation at the high school. The parents said that the minor was not home, but would return inabout 10 or 15 minutes. The officers told the parents that theywould wait for the minor in the parking lot.

When the minor arrived at the parking lot, the officersplaced him under arrest. Without having an opportunity to speakto his parents, the minor was transported to the police stationby a third officer.

At the suppression hearing, Esser testified that he andNicholson again spoke to the minor's parents after the minor wasarrested. According to the officers, they now told the parentsthat the minor had been arrested for a sexual offense and wasbeing transported to the police station. The minor's father toldthe officers that in the State of Indiana, parents could act astheir child's attorney during police interrogation. The fatherasked Esser if the parents could act as the minor's attorney inthis case. Esser advised the father that in the State ofIllinois, parents could not act as a minor's attorney. Esser andNicholson then left the apartment and went to the police station.

The minor's mother testified at the suppression hearing. She stated that the minor's father not only asked Esser about theparents acting as the minor's attorney, but also asked if theparents could come to the police station. According to themother, Esser said that the parents could not come to the policestation.

At the suppression hearing, Esser stated that at the policestation he read the minor his Miranda rights and interrogated theminor for 2