Bugg v. State, No. 375S75

Docket NºNo. 375S75
Citation267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156
Case DateFebruary 20, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1156

372 N.E.2d 1156
267 Ind. 614
Nellie BUGG, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 375S75.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 20, 1978.

Page 1157

Lawrence O. Sells, Indianapolis, for appellant.

[267 Ind. 615] Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Elmer Lloyd Whitmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellant Nellie Bugg was convicted of second degree murder in the Marion Criminal Court on April 9, 1974, and sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment. The killing in question occurred on November 3, 1972, in the home of appellant. On that date, police officers found the appellant in her bedroom and found the victim, the former husband of appellant, who was an Indianapolis police officer, dead in the bathtub. The victim's gun was in an adjoining hallway and four spent shells were found in the bathroom. The victim had two bullet wounds in the head, and one in his upper arm and upper body. Evidence indicated that the bullet wound in the upper body caused death, and that such bullet was fired by the victim's pistol. It is undisputed that appellant fired the fatal shot following an argument.

Appellant argues two errors in the proceedings of her trial below: (1) that the trial court permitted a police officer to testify as to statements made to him by appellant while appellant was incarcerated, and; (2) that there was insufficient evidence to convict the appellant for the offense of second degree murder.

I.

Appellant's first argument is that a police officer's testimony concerning statements made by appellant to him while she was incarcerated should not have been admitted, because appellant was not properly advised of her constitutional rights required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

The relevant events surrounding appellant's contentions are as follows. On November 3, 1972, an Indianapolis police officer entered appellant's home and found her in one of the bedrooms and the deceased in the bathtub. At that time, appellant stated, "I shot him; there is the gun laying on the dresser drawers." Other officers arrived at the scene, and [267 Ind. 616] one of them advised appellant of her constitutional rights, although she was not questioned at this time. No statements made by appellant on the day of the killing are being challenged. Rather, the statements in issue were made three days later, on November 6, to Sergeant Kirkham of the Marion County Sheriff's Department. Kirkham had known appellant, Nellie Bugg, for over five years. He was neither assigned to her case, nor was he working on it. However, he had heard from a matron at the Marion County Jail that appellant was not eating, was distraught and was going into hysterics, and that there was fear that appellant would collapse. Kirkham testified that he went to see appellant as a friend, tried to calm her down and asked her if she had any problems. She then told him, "well I guess I killed Tommie." Appellant then went on and kept talking, detailing circumstances of her relationship with the deceased leading up to the day of the killing. Sergeant Kirkham never advised appellant of her Miranda rights.

The trial court found that appellant had been advised of her Miranda rights at the time of her arrest, three days earlier. Cf. Conrad v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789; Rogers v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 315, 315 N.E.2d 707. However, there was no testimony or evidence regarding exactly what rights had been read to her, either on direct examination of the arresting officers or on their cross-examination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Lowery v. State, No. 483S116
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 4 Junio 1985
    ...uttered by a police officer which is punctuated with a question mark will necessarily constitute an interrogation. See e.g. Bugg v. State [267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156 (1978) ], supra. Rather, it is necessary to view the statement in the context in which it was made. If, after having done ......
  • Schiro v. State, No. 1181S329
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 5 Agosto 1983
    ...'custodial interrogation.' Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, Page 1060 50 L.Ed.2d 714; Bugg v. State, (1978) Ind., [267 Ind. 614] 372 N.E.2d 1156, 1158. Custodial interrogation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken int......
  • Partlow v. State, No. 182S28
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Septiembre 1983
    ...a police officer which is punctuated with a question mark will necessarily constitute an interrogation. See e.g. Bugg v. State, [ (1978) 267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156]. Rather, it is necessary to view the statement in the context in which it was made. If, after having done so, it does not a......
  • Minneman v. State, No. 481S103
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Noviembre 1982
    ...429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714; Orozco v. Texas, (1969) 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311; Bugg v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156; Maxey v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 645, 244 N.E.2d 650, cert. denied, (1970) 397 U.S. 949, 90 S.Ct. 969, 25 L.Ed.2d 130. We held......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Lowery v. State, No. 483S116
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 4 Junio 1985
    ...uttered by a police officer which is punctuated with a question mark will necessarily constitute an interrogation. See e.g. Bugg v. State [267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156 (1978) ], supra. Rather, it is necessary to view the statement in the context in which it was made. If, after having done ......
  • Schiro v. State, No. 1181S329
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 5 Agosto 1983
    ...'custodial interrogation.' Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, Page 1060 50 L.Ed.2d 714; Bugg v. State, (1978) Ind., [267 Ind. 614] 372 N.E.2d 1156, 1158. Custodial interrogation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken int......
  • Partlow v. State, No. 182S28
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Septiembre 1983
    ...a police officer which is punctuated with a question mark will necessarily constitute an interrogation. See e.g. Bugg v. State, [ (1978) 267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156]. Rather, it is necessary to view the statement in the context in which it was made. If, after having done so, it does not a......
  • Minneman v. State, No. 481S103
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 12 Noviembre 1982
    ...429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714; Orozco v. Texas, (1969) 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311; Bugg v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 614, 372 N.E.2d 1156; Maxey v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 645, 244 N.E.2d 650, cert. denied, (1970) 397 U.S. 949, 90 S.Ct. 969, 25 L.Ed.2d 130. We held......
  • 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