Is appellant's Fifth Amendment claim subject to forfeiture due to his failure to raise the issue to the juvenile court?

While neither appellant nor the People mentioned it in their briefs, appellant's Fifth Amendment claim is subject to forfeiture due to his failure to raise the issue to the juvenile court. As a general rule, the failure to raise a claim of a constitutional violation in the admission of evidence at trial forfeits the claim on appeal. Appellant "must make a specific objection on Miranda grounds at the trial level in order to raise a Miranda claim on appeal.' [Citations.]" (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854.) However, a reviewing court may still consider the issue; the forfeiture rule is not automatic. (See ibid. ["Notwithstanding [appellant's] failure to identify in the trial court self-incrimination theories . . . we consider them here."].) Thus, despite appellant's failure to raise his Fifth Amendment claims in the juvenile court, we nevertheless elect to review appellant's claims on the merits.

In reviewing appellant's claim that his Miranda rights were violated, we defer to the trial court for resolution of factual disputes and inferences, and its determination of the credibility of witnesses in deciding whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Whitson (1998) 17 Cal.4th 229, 248.) Under Miranda, for an appellant's statements to be admissible against him, he must have knowingly and

Page 12

intelligently waived his right to remain silent, and must have been clearly informed that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence and assistance of counsel. (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 385 U.S. at p. 479.)