Bailey v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1083S366,1083S366 |
| Parties | Robert BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert L. Meinzer, Jr., Ottenheimer, Silverman & Meinzer, St. John, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Theodore E. Hansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The defendant, Robert Bailey, was convicted by a jury of burglary, a Class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-43-2-1 (1984 Supp.), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years. On direct appeal he raises the following issues:
1. Whether the court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his confession;
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction.
A brief summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state shows that a policeman, a neighbor of the burglary victims, saw the defendant run out of the victims' house and into a waiting car. The policeman gave chase as the defendant and the other occupant of the car drove away, and they were finally apprehended. At the residence, the glass in the front door had been broken and household items had been scattered about the living room. One of the residents testified that a rifle and a jewelry box were missing.
After the defendant and his friend, the other occupant of the car, were transported to jail, a detective took them from the booking area to the interrogation room. While in the elevator, the defendant and the detective, long acquainted from the defendant's previous involvement with the law, engaged in what the detective called "chit-chat." The detective asked the defendant, "What are you doing in here?" The defendant told the detective that, although he was caught with the stolen merchandise, he had not committed the burglary.
Meanwhile, both the defendant and his friend were protesting that the friend was not involved and should be released. The detective proceeded to tell the defendant that his explanation of what happened would not suffice and that he would have to tell the truth if he wanted his friend to be released. The three then proceeded to the interrogation room where the detective prepared to take a statement. He handed the rights waiver form to the defendant who stated he understood his rights. He signed the form and confessed to the burglary. His statement exculpated his friend who was released.
The defendant's claim that his confession was not freely and voluntarily given is two-fold. He argues first that he was tricked or coerced into making his statement by the detective's "promise" to release his friend. Second, he argues that the confession was a product of the conversation in the elevator which he characterizes as interrogation.
When the defendant raised the issue of the voluntariness of his confession, the state had the burden of proving it was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Woolston v. State, (1983) Ind., 453 N.E.2d 965. The question was for the trial court to resolve, and on review we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court's ruling will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Id.
As to the defendant's claim that he was coerced into his confession, it is true that a confession induced by promises, threats, or deceit is not voluntarily made. Peterson v. State, (1983) Ind., 453 N.E.2d 196. We do not, however, find these elements here. The evidence does not reveal that the defendant was promised his friend's release, but that he was merely advised that it would not be forthcoming without some basis for believing that, although the two were caught in the car with the goods, the friend had no knowledge of the burglary. In any case, it is unlikely in a case such as this that one would involuntarily confess to a crime for the sake of another's liberty. We have held that advising a defendant of the possibility that his wife would be charged does not render his subsequent confession involuntary. Lamb v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1. The expectation that a truthful account would gain his friend's release did not render the defendant's confession involuntary.
The defendant next claims that his confession and the waiver of his Miranda rights were involuntarily made because of the preceding conversation in the elevator. He argues that the detective interrogated him when he asked, "What are you doing in here?" and by urging him to tell the truth. The defendant claims that this interrogation was improper, having occurred prior to the signing of the waiver form, and that the subsequent waiver was merely a product of the allegedly improper questioning.
Whether or not the conversation in the elevator was interrogation or merely a casual exchange, we will not find the subsequent post-waiver confession inadmissible if we find from the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case that the waiver was intelligently made. Tawney v. State, (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 582. The record most favorable to the state reveals that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...is examined from a totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation in which the statement is given. Bailey v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 609. In the case under consideration, the record adequately supports the conclusion that the defendant's written statement was voluntarily......
-
Coppock v. State
...level of Hall's near and dear spousal relationship and would not be as susceptible to coercion by threat or promise. In Bailey v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 609, we held that an accused's expectation that his confession would gain the release of a friend with whom he was arrested did no......
-
Wilburn v. State
...failure to make a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8).4 We acknowledge our Supreme Court's statement in Bailey v. State , 473 N.E.2d 609, 611 (Ind. 1985), that "regardless of authorization, if entry is established and is coupled with independent evidence of felonious intent, a......
-
Johnson v. State
...an accused's expectation that his confession will gain his friend's release does not render his confession involuntary. Bailey v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 609, 610. The record reveals here that Johnson had run away from home 6 or 8 months prior and had not been in contact with his mot......