Lane v. State, No. 675S146

Docket NºNo. 675S146
Citation364 N.E.2d 756, 266 Ind. 485
Case DateJuly 12, 1977
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 756

364 N.E.2d 756
266 Ind. 485
Richard Emerson LANE, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 675S146.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 12, 1977.

[266 Ind. 486]

Page 758

Jack Rogers, Franklin, Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles M. Russell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

Richard Emerson Lane, the defendant, was charged with first degree murder and first degree murder in the commission of a robbery. After a trial by jury, he was convicted on both counts and was ultimately sentenced to life [266 Ind. 487] imprisonment on one count. The defendant filed a motion to correct errors and appeals to this Court, raising the following issues:

1.) Whether the defendant's statement was obtained after advisement of and a valid waiver of his constitutional rights; and

2.) Whether the testimony of the defendant's girlfriend should have been excluded as a confidential communication.

I.

A pre-trial motion sought the suppression of a statement made by the defendant and a rifle recovered through his aid. Evidence was submitted in a pre-trial hearing and the motion was denied. When the statement and the rifle were offered into evidence, the defendant objected. The objections were overruled and the evidence was admitted. The defendant contends that the statement should have been excluded from his trial on the grounds that it was given without an adequate advisement of his constitutional rights and without a valid waiver of his right to remain silent.

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, guidelines were established to protect an individual's constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. A statement made by an accused during custodial interrogation is not admissible over his objection, unless law enforcement officers give adequate and specified warnings to the accused before questioning, and the accused waives those rights. Michigan v. Mosley (1975), 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313. In order for an accused to effectively waive his privilege of silence and his right to an attorney, the waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Brown v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 558, 270 N.E.2d 751. Volunteered statements fall completely outside the scope of Miranda ; the safeguards erected by that holding are directed at protecting the accused from abuses of interrogation.

[266 Ind. 488] "There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime . . .."

Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. Volunteered statements are unaffected by Miranda because there can be no presumption of compulsion where there is no interrogation. An accused has a right to speak equal to his privilege of silence.

A corollary of an accused's right to remain silent is his right to cut off questioning.

"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point, he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise."

Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 473, 86 S.Ct. at 1627, 16 L.Ed.2d at 694. The admissibility of statements made by an accused after he

Page 759

has exercised his right to remain silent depends on whether his right to cut off questioning has been scrupulously honored. Michigan v. Mosely (1975), 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313; Mims v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 37, 262 N.E.2d 638.

The trial court heard evidence on the defendant's motion to suppress in a pre-trial hearing. Much...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Noviembre 1980
    ...supra, are properly admitted into evidence. Kennedy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 322, 325, 370 N.E.2d 331, 332; Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 487-88, 364 N.E.2d 756, 758; Lockridge v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 678, 683, 338 N.E.2d 275, 279. See Rhode Island v. Innis, (1980) --- U.S. ----, 1......
  • Bergner v. State, No. 3-379A85
    • United States
    • 12 Diciembre 1979
    ...The policy clearly restricts the privilege to communications made in the course of a legally recognized marriage. Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 364 N.E.2d 756; Damrell v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d 855. However, as long as a communication is made within the course of a marriag......
  • Mulry v. State, No. 2-877A306
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 21 Enero 1980
    ...that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 364 N.E.2d 756. Miranda further requires, before a statement made by defendant under circumstances requiring the warnings may be admitted i......
  • Owen v. State, No. PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Noviembre 1978
    ...cannot reweigh conflicting evidence upon which a trial court based its findings on a motion to suppress. Lane v. State, (1977) Ind., 364 N.E.2d 756, 759. Insofar as appellant claims that advisement of Fourth Amendment rights prior to a consent search is constitutionally necessary, this argu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Noviembre 1980
    ...supra, are properly admitted into evidence. Kennedy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 322, 325, 370 N.E.2d 331, 332; Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 487-88, 364 N.E.2d 756, 758; Lockridge v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 678, 683, 338 N.E.2d 275, 279. See Rhode Island v. Innis, (1980) --- U.S. ----, 1......
  • Bergner v. State, No. 3-379A85
    • United States
    • 12 Diciembre 1979
    ...The policy clearly restricts the privilege to communications made in the course of a legally recognized marriage. Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 364 N.E.2d 756; Damrell v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d 855. However, as long as a communication is made within the course of a marriag......
  • Mulry v. State, No. 2-877A306
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 21 Enero 1980
    ...that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Lane v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 485, 364 N.E.2d 756. Miranda further requires, before a statement made by defendant under circumstances requiring the warnings may be admitted i......
  • Owen v. State, No. PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Noviembre 1978
    ...cannot reweigh conflicting evidence upon which a trial court based its findings on a motion to suppress. Lane v. State, (1977) Ind., 364 N.E.2d 756, 759. Insofar as appellant claims that advisement of Fourth Amendment rights prior to a consent search is constitutionally necessary, this argu......
  • 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