Lamb v. State, No. 175S29
| Docket Nº | No. 175S29 |
| Citation | 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1 |
| Case Date | June 04, 1976 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
Page 2
Thurman M. De Moss, Franklin, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
[264 Ind. 564] HUNTER, Justice.
Raymond Charles Lamb was convicted of first degree murder after jury trial in the Jefferson Circuit Court. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. His appeal presents three issues for determination:
1. Whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress statements made by the defendant;
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give one of defendant's instructions; and
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for mistrial, predicated upon the state's voire dire examination of prospective jurors.
I.
Procedurally, appellant challenged the admissibility of his confession through a pre-trial motion to suppress. After a hearing on the motion to suppress, at which appellant did not testify, the trial court overruled the motion. At trial when the confessions were introduced, appellant did not raise any objection other than to rely upon his earlier motion. The overruling of such motion was assigned as error in appellant's motion to correct errors, and it is that error which we review below. In so doing, we review the evidence before the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress together with all evidence presented prior to the admission of the confessions.
Appellant maintains that statements he made to the police on September 2d and 6th, 1973, were not voluntarily given and should have been suppressed. When the statements were given, appellant had been in jail for several months on another charge. Commencing in July, 1973, John Lasiter and Sheriff John Means, both of the Johnson County Sheriff's Department, began questioning appellant about the murder here charged. The frequency of these sessions was no more than twice a week, and the duration of each session ranged from half an hour to forty-five minutes. Appellant's Miranda rights were explained to him before each of these requiries. These sessions were discontinued sometime during the latter part of August, apparently because they were unproductive. [264 Ind. 565] Sheriff Means testified at the motion to suppress hearing that it had been at least two weeks, possibly three, since appellant had been qestioned about the murder prior to his confession on September 2. The ground work for appellant's confession on September 2 was laid when, on September 1, appellant sent a note asking to see Lasiter. When Lasiter responded, the appellant told him:
(CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOHN LASITER.)
A. '. . . if I would make arrangements for him to have a telephone conversation with Bonnie Emmert, the girl he had been living with, that after asking what she thought that he would probably confess to the two homicides I had been working on. So I made these arrangments and was notified that Bonnie would return may call at 10:30 P.M. on Sunday. So that was when I went down to the jail and got him out and took him to the downstairs office and she called approximately 9:30 A.M. He talked to her for 30 to 40 minutes. After that he got up from the telephone
Page 3
and said 'I am ready to confess' and we went to my office and he did so.'Appellant urges that his confession was rendered involuntary because of his fear that his common-law wife, Bonnie, might be charged as an accessory to the theft for which he was incarcerated and/or in the murder under investigation. Appellant was also concerned about the fate of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State, CR-14-0753
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614, 218 Ill. Dec. 884 (Ill. 1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 3......
-
In re L.J.
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614, 218 Ill.Dec. 884 (Ill.1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 372 ......
-
State v. Henning
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 218 Page 298 Ill.Dec. 884, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614 (1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 372......
-
Breese v. State, No. 2-880A283
...peculiarly "available" to his employer once the employment relationship is terminated, our Supreme Court in Lamb v. State (1976) 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, held that no adverse inference could be drawn from the prosecutor's failure to call the investigating officer, who had left ......
-
Collins v. State, CR-14-0753
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614, 218 Ill. Dec. 884 (Ill. 1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 3......
-
In re L.J.
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614, 218 Ill.Dec. 884 (Ill.1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 372 ......
-
State v. Henning
...People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 218 Page 298 Ill.Dec. 884, 670 N.E.2d 606, 614 (1996) (voluntariness of statement); Lamb v. State, 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1976) (voluntariness of statement); State v. Jackson, 542 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1996) (inventory search); State v. Chopin, 372......
-
Breese v. State, No. 2-880A283
...peculiarly "available" to his employer once the employment relationship is terminated, our Supreme Court in Lamb v. State (1976) 264 Ind. 563, 348 N.E.2d 1, held that no adverse inference could be drawn from the prosecutor's failure to call the investigating officer, who had left ......