Hampton v. State, No. 4-1283A414

Docket NºNo. 4-1283A414
Citation468 N.E.2d 1077
Case DateOctober 04, 1984
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1077

468 N.E.2d 1077
Charles P. HAMPTON, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 4-1283A414.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Fourth District.
Oct. 4, 1984.

Page 1078

David B. Sexson, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Jay Rodia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.

CONOVER, Judge.

Charles Hampton (Hampton) appeals his conviction for attempted robbery.

Affirmed.

ISSUES

This appeal presents three issues:

1. Whether the confession was a product of an illegal arrest.

2. Whether the confession was voluntary.

3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

Page 1079

FACTS

In the early morning hours of Saturday, January 29, 1983, Frieda Berninger (Berninger) was working at a restaurant in Franklin, Indiana. She observed a man run across U.S. 31 and up to the front windows of a Pizza Hut restaurant located nearby. She thought the man appeared to be about 19-years-old, and saw he was dressed in blue jeans, a jacket and a hat. She observed the man move around the building between windows, and stated she believed he was attempting to avoid car lights. The Pizza Hut's employees were inside, closing the restaurant for the night. After about 15 minutes, Berninger called the police.

Police officers eventually arrived, and discovered Hampton lying face down between bushes and the Pizza Hut building. The arresting officers testified Hampton appeared unstable on his feet, could not coherently answer the officers' questions, and smelled of alcohol. They arrested Hampton for public intoxication and read him his Miranda rights.

When Hampton was searched at the jail, detention personnel discovered he was carrying a .22 caliber starter's pistol. While at the jail Hampton also was given a breathalyzer test, which registered .00.

A detective came to the jail and again advised Hampton of his Miranda rights. Hampton told the detective he had been expelled from his home by his parents, and was lying in the bushes to keep warm. The detective told Hampton he did not believe this story, and Hampton would be charged with attempted robbery, a class C felony. The detective explained the presumptive sentence for a class C felony is 5 years imprisonment, which may be increased or decreased by 3 years depending upon aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The detective told Hampton he wanted the truth, and while he could make no promises, he could inform the court if Hampton were cooperative.

Hampton then gave the detective a statement in which he acknowledged he had gone to the Pizza Hut to rob it because he had been expelled from his home and needed money for an apartment. During their investigation, officers discovered Hampton previously had worked for the Pizza Hut, he would have known Friday is the restaurant's busiest evening, a late deposit would be made, and several hundred dollars would have been left on the premises. Only the assistant manager and perhaps one or two other employees were at the Pizza Hut when Hampton was arrested outside.

The trial court found Hampton guilty of attempted robbery. He appealed.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Valid Arrest

Hampton initially was arrested on a charge of public intoxication, a class B misdemeanor, cf. IND.CODE 7.1-5-1-3. Hampton claims the .00 breathalyzer reading conclusively shows he could not have been intoxicated when arrested, the police thus did not have probable cause to arrest him, and therefore his confession is the product of an illegal arrest. We disagree.

A warrantless arrest must be based on probable cause. Clark v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 773, 775. A warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor can be made only if the offense was committed in the presence of the police. Works v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 250, 258, 362 N.E.2d 144, 148; Elliot v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 302, 304; Britt v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 859, 861, n. 1. The question of whether there is probable cause for the arrest is determined by the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer at the time of the arrest. Smith v. State, (1979) 272 Ind. 328, 333, 397 N.E.2d 959, 963. The facts and circumstances must be such as to warrant a person of reasonable caution and prudence to believe the defendant committed the offense in question. See, Battle v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 39, 42; Harrison v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 1065, 1068.

Page 1080

Under the facts here presented, Hampton's behavior provided probable cause for his arrest for public intoxication. Porter v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 180, 186, 391 N.E.2d 801, 807, overruled on other grounds in Fleener v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 778, 780-81.

II. Voluntariness of Confession

Hampton next argues his confession was the result of impermissible coercion by police officers, contending the officers threatened to file charges which could result in a 20-year sentence if Hampton did not confess, and assured him of a misdemeanor conviction and sentence if he did cooperate. We disagree.

The detective testified he told Hampton he wanted the truth; while he would make no promises, he could inform the court if Hampton were truthful and cooperative.

Prior to custodial interrogation, police officers must advise a suspect of his right not to make a statement, of his right to have an attorney present, and the possibility the statement will be used against him in court. See generally Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Here, Miranda warnings were given Hampton twice.

Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Gutierrez v. Kermon, No. 12–2934.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2013
    ...and hostile toward officers), disapproved on other grounds by Fleener v. State, 274 Ind. 473, 412 N.E.2d 778 (1980); Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1079–80 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (probable cause of intoxication where arrestee “appeared unstable on his feet, could not coherently answer the of......
  • Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis, Case No. 1:11–cv–0185–TWP–DML.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • August 13, 2012
    ...hair would lead a reasonable officer to believe at that moment that Mr. Gutierrez was publicly intoxicated. See Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1078 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (recognizing that police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication when he had bloodshot ey......
  • Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis, Case No. 1:11-cv-0185-TWP-DML
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • August 13, 2012
    ...hair would lead a reasonable officer to believe at that moment that Mr. Gutierrez was publicly intoxicated. See Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (recognizing that police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication when he had bloodshot......
  • State v. Van Cleave, No. 49S00-9008-PD-541
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 19, 1996
    ...towards committing robbery. Indeed, defendants have been convicted of attempted robbery on much flimsier facts. Cf. Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (defendant who was found wearing ski mask outside restaurant, but who did not enter restaurant or accost employees, took su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Gutierrez v. Kermon, No. 12–2934.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2013
    ...and hostile toward officers), disapproved on other grounds by Fleener v. State, 274 Ind. 473, 412 N.E.2d 778 (1980); Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1079–80 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (probable cause of intoxication where arrestee “appeared unstable on his feet, could not coherently answer the of......
  • Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis, Case No. 1:11–cv–0185–TWP–DML.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • August 13, 2012
    ...hair would lead a reasonable officer to believe at that moment that Mr. Gutierrez was publicly intoxicated. See Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1078 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (recognizing that police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication when he had bloodshot ey......
  • Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis, Case No. 1:11-cv-0185-TWP-DML
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • August 13, 2012
    ...hair would lead a reasonable officer to believe at that moment that Mr. Gutierrez was publicly intoxicated. See Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077, 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (recognizing that police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication when he had bloodshot......
  • State v. Van Cleave, No. 49S00-9008-PD-541
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 19, 1996
    ...towards committing robbery. Indeed, defendants have been convicted of attempted robbery on much flimsier facts. Cf. Hampton v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (defendant who was found wearing ski mask outside restaurant, but who did not enter restaurant or accost employees, took su......
  • 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