Bowen v. State, No. 683

Docket NºNo. 683
Citation478 N.E.2d 44
Case DateMay 20, 1985
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 44

478 N.E.2d 44
Jeffrey D. BOWEN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 683 S 233.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 20, 1985.

Page 45

John F. Tweedle, Bainbridge & Tweedle, Highland, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lee Cloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Indiana, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from convictions of rape, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-4-1 and criminal deviate conduct, a class B felony Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-4-2. The case was tried before a jury. Appellant received two concurrent twelve year sentences.

Appellant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it admitted his statement to the police into evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion in limine regarding his prior conviction for child molesting; (3) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to rape or criminal deviate conduct; (4) whether his convictions are supported by sufficient evidence; and (5) whether his sentences are manifestly unreasonable.

These are the facts that tend to support the determination of guilt. On September 19, 1982, at midnight, the victim H.P. went with Cindy Crissman in Crissman's car to the Point East disco near Crown Point, Indiana. When they arrived, Crissman and the victim met appellant and Bill Naylor. Crissman and Naylor started conversing, and the victim joined another group of people. At approximately 1:30 p.m., the victim decided to leave and rejoined Crissman, Naylor and appellant. They went out to the parking lot, and the victim agreed to allow appellant to drive her home.

During the trip, he asked her to sit closer to him and kiss him. In response, she asked him to let her out of the car. He stopped the car, placed his hand on her throat and tried to suffocate her. He relented and told her to remove her jeans. He threatened to leave her in a ditch if she did not cooperate. He pulled her clothing partially off and forced her to have vaginal and oral intercourse with him. She eventually escaped and ran to Crissman's house. Crissman took her to the police station.

I

Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it admitted, over his objection, his statement to the police into evidence. He claims that his statement, which contained highly inculpatory remarks, was the product of threats and a promise of leniency. A suppression hearing was held and the trial court determined that his statement was voluntarily given.

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence on the voluntariness of a confession, the Court will not reweigh the evidence; rather, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the finding of voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Grassmyer v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 248. Ortiz v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 549, 356 N.E.2d 1188.

Here is the evidence that supports the trial court's determination of voluntariness. First, appellant admitted that an officer read him his rights and that he signed a waiver of rights form. Also, appellant gave and signed an inculpatory statement. Finally, Officer Condor testified that no threats, inducements or promises were made to appellant in order to convince him to give a statement. This evidence is sufficient to warrant the ruling that appellant was coherent and that his inculpatory statement was freely self-determined beyond a reasonable doubt and not the product of threats, inducements or promises. See Jones v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1283. Appellant's testimony that Officer Condor had threatened to burn him if he didn't confess, and promised to go easy on him if he did confess, created a conflict in the evidence material to the voluntariness issue. The accommodation of the two opposing fact bodies was for the trier of fact, and cannot now be redone on appeal.

Page 46

II

Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion in limine regarding his prior conviction for child molesting. At trial, after the State rested, appellant renewed his objection to the denial of his motion in limine. He contends that the overruling of his objection effectively prevented him from taking the stand on his own...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 6 Noviembre 1989
    ...with the uncontradicted evidence. Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 712-713. See also, Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, Page 1109 To admit a confession into evidence in Indiana, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary and the ......
  • Hughes v. State, No. 10A01-8605-CR-116
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 8 Junio 1987
    ...find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment must be affirmed. Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44. Circumstantial evidence alone may support a conviction. Grimes v. State (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 512. Contrary to Hughes's assertion, the c......
  • Fointno v. State, No. 1283S460
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Enero 1986
    ...or criminal deviate conduct may rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. See, e.g. Bowen v. Page 143 State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, 46-47; Shippen v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 903, 904 and authorities The victim testified that she had taken her seven-year-old daughter ......
  • Stephenson v. Levenhagen, CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-539-TS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Bowen v. State, 478 N.E.2d 44, 46 (Ind. 1985). Under both Indiana law and federal law, the ultimate question is whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found all ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 6 Noviembre 1989
    ...with the uncontradicted evidence. Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 712-713. See also, Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, Page 1109 To admit a confession into evidence in Indiana, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary and the ......
  • Hughes v. State, No. 10A01-8605-CR-116
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 8 Junio 1987
    ...find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment must be affirmed. Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44. Circumstantial evidence alone may support a conviction. Grimes v. State (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 512. Contrary to Hughes's assertion, the c......
  • Fointno v. State, No. 1283S460
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Enero 1986
    ...or criminal deviate conduct may rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. See, e.g. Bowen v. Page 143 State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, 46-47; Shippen v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 903, 904 and authorities The victim testified that she had taken her seven-year-old daughter ......
  • Stephenson v. Levenhagen, CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-539-TS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Bowen v. State, 478 N.E.2d 44, 46 (Ind. 1985). Under both Indiana law and federal law, the ultimate question is whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found all e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT