
    In the Matter of Raymond W., Appellant.
    Argued May 4, 1978;
    decided May 31, 1978
    
      POINTS OF COUNSEL
    
      Wendy Sue Lauring, William E. Hellerstein and Charles Schinitsky for appellant.
    The admission of this 13-year-old appellant’s confession obtained (a) through intentionally false and misleading legal advice and (b) intensive and coercive early morning interrogation, deprived appellant of his right to due process under the New York State and Federal Constitutions. (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; People v Noble, 9 NY2d 571; Von Moltke v Gillies, 332 US 708; United States ex rel. Vanderhorst v La Vallee, 285 F Supp 233, 417 F2d 411, cert den sub nom. McMann v Vanderhorst, 397 US 925; Garner v United States, 424 US 648; People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72; Bram v United States, 168 US 532; United States v Mailings, 364 F2d 173.)
    
      Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (James P. Griffin and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondent.
    Appellant’s confession was voluntary. (Clewis v Texas, 386 US 707; People v Oakley, 9 NY2d 656; People v Foley, 8 NY2d 153; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; Michigan v Mosley, 423 US 96; People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112; People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102; People v Stephen J. B., 23 NY2d 611.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Confronted as we are with an affirmed factual determination that appellant’s confession was given voluntarily, we cannot conclude on this record that it was involuntary as a matter of law.

We do take occasion, nonetheless, to make a further observation. However extensive may be a parent’s right and a minor child’s entitlement to the exercise of the responsibilities of parental guidance and influence (an issue which we identify but do not now address or determine), if it be established that such guidance or influence is not exercised by the parent independently but at the behest or on behalf of the prosecutor, such circumstance should weigh heavily to indicate the involuntariness of the child’s confession. Notwithstanding available inferences, no such impermissible connection was demonstrated as a matter of law in this instance. We suggest, however, because of the quality of the parent-child relationship and its potential for improper displacement of free choice on the part of the child, that courts should be alert to the risks of deprivation of the rights of either child or parent in such situations.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.  