Hayden v. State
Decision Date | 25 September 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 30363,30363 |
Citation | 201 N.E.2d 329,245 Ind. 591 |
Parties | Charles William HAYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Money, Orr, Bridwell & Fink, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Edgar Husted, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant asserts two grounds as cause for rehearing.They are:
1.That the conviction was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
2.That appellant did not have the benefit of counsel prior to the taking of his confession which was admitted in evidence.
The issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence was fully considered in the majority opinion and does not merit further consideration.
In support of his second contention appellant relies upon the recent decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Escobedo v. Illinois(1964), 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, decided on June 22, this year.However, the facts in the Escobedo case and the case at bar are clearly distinguishable, and, therefore, that case is not controlling of the case at bar.In the Escobedo casethe court held a confession taken from a defendant to be inadmissible for the reason that he had requested counsel before making his confession, which request was not only denied him but his attorney was forcibly restrained from conferring with him.In the present casethe defendant was advised of his right to counsel at least two times but signed the incriminating statement without requesting such counsel.Thus, even under the ruling of the Escobedocase, supra, it must also be considered that appellant waived any right to counsel.
In contradiction of the fact of such waiver, appellant asserts that he cannot be charged with a waiver because of his 'tender age.'Under other circumstances, we might concur in appellant's contention, but here it is apparent from the facts in evidence that appellant was worldly wise far beyond the years of his 'tender age.'
We cannot say that the taking of appellant's confession without benefit of counsel in anywise deprived him of any constitutional right of due process or that the admission of his confession in evidence constituted an abuse of discretion.
Petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
MYERS, J., not participating.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Shelby v. Phend
...which is still available under new Supreme Court Rule P.C. 1. See Wright v. State, 249 N.E.2d 33 (Ind.Sup.Ct.1969); Shack v. State, 249 Ind. 60, 206 N.E.2d 614 (1967); Hayden v. State, 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102,
201 N.E.2d 329 (1964); McKinley v. State, 252 N.E.2d 420, 423-424 2 Appellee contends that this appeal must be dismissed because appellant failed to comply with the time requirements for filing briefs in this court. F.R.A.P. 31. We have... -
United States v. Drummond
...against self-incrimination and his right to counsel either at a pre-trial stage or at the trial." 378 U.S. at 490 n. 14, 84 S.Ct. at 1765. See also Jackson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 337 F.2d 136 (1964);
Hayden v. State, 201 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. 1964); State v. Elam, 263 N.C. 237, 139 S.E.2d 601, 606 (1965). It is interesting to note, moreover, that despite the holding in United States ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey, 351 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1965),... -
Jones v. State
...checks for a grant total of $1,233.80 which he turned over to decedent's son-in-law, Warren Antoine. It thus appears the facts in this case are on all fours with and supported by Hayden v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102,
201 N.E.2d 329. The statement in the opinion relative to dicta and confusion and attempting by the majority opinion herein to overrule all statements or cases contrary to the majority opinion herein, is in my opinion bad law and one that this... -
Wright v. State
...new trial', 2 he attempts to justify by-passing the trial court and raising the issue originally in the appellate forum by quoting out of context a dictum found in Hayden v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 591, 599, 199 N.E.2d 102, 106,
201 N.E.2d 329, as 'Such errors may not ordinarily be presented for the first time in the assignment of errors on appeal to this court, although conceivably a possible exception to the rule might be made where the error appears as a matter of record...