Layton v. State, No. 672S81

Docket NºNo. 672S81
Citation261 Ind. 251, 301 N.E.2d 633
Case DateOctober 05, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 633

301 N.E.2d 633
261 Ind. 251
Michael W. LAYTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 672S81.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 5, 1973.

Page 634

Donald E. Transki, Michigan City, for appellant.

[261 Ind. 252] Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

On December 15, 1971, a jury found the Appellant guilty of first degree murder, and after a pre-sentence investigation the Court, on January 14, 1972, ordered that Appellant be imprisoned in the Indiana State Prison for life. The Appellant filed a timely Motion to Correct Errors, and it is from the overruling of that motion that Appellant now appeals to this Court.

Briefly, the circumstances appear to have been that Appellant, an inmate at the Indiana State Prison, already under life sentence for murder and participating in robbery, threw gasoline on and ignited another inmate while the other inmate was locked in a cell. Appellant testified that he did the act because it was the only way to prevent the decedent, a physically more powerful man, from imposing his sexual will upon the Appellant.

Appellant presents five allegations of error. First, Appellant maintains that he should have been discharged prior to trial pursuant to C.R. 4, which requires such a discharge if a defendant is not brought to trial within six months of the date of his arrest on such charge or the date the charge is filed, whichever is later. However, the undisputed facts are that one of the delays which caused the trial to be set beyond the six-month period was pursuant to a request for a change in trial date 'either prior to or after the original date for trial' by Appellant's attorney. When the Court changed the trial date to a day beyond the six-month period, Appellant's attorney acquiesced. Under these circumstances, Appellant is estopped to assert C.R. 4, which exempts from its coverage situations wherein a continuance was had on the motion of the defendant or the delay was caused by an act of the defendant. Bryant v. State, Ind., 301 N.E.2d 179 (1973).

Appellant's second specification of error revolves around the admission into evidence of a pre-trial confession. Appellant [261 Ind. 253] suggests that since a written transcription of the confession and the tape-recording itself were not totally consistent, both having been presented to the jury, it is necessary that the customary waiver of Miranda rights be on the tape-recording as well as in written form as it is in the instant situation. The authority for this proposition is purportedly Lamar v. State (1972), Ind., 282 N.E.2d 795. However, that case simply set forth as one of five criteria for establishing a foundation for the admission of a sound-recording 'that all required warnings were given and all necessary acknowledgments and

Page 635

waivers were knowingly and intelligently given.' The precise medium through which a waiver is obtained is not delimited by this rule. Appellant does not, at this portion of his argument, maintain that the waiver was in fact involuntary. We do not see in what ways defendant's rights will be better protected by requiring that a waiver be preserved in the same medium as the confession.

Appellant also contends that the confession itself was involuntary because he was under the influence of drugs at the time he gave the confession. Appellant testified that on the date of the alleged crime, which was also the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...360, 368, 332 N.E.2d 213, 219. The scope of rebuttal evidence is a matter left to the trial court's discretion. Layton v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 251, 255, 301 N.E.2d 633, 636. In the case before us, Stateler's testimony did not merely bolster Jones' veracity concerning a collateral matter. ......
  • Mayes v. State, No. 2--1172A110
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 13, 1974
    ...the Utterback decision is binding upon this court: 'In Bryant v. State (1973), Ind., 301 N.E.2d 179 and in Layton v. State (1973), Ind., 301 N.E.2d 633, we held that under Criminal Rule 4 it was incumbent upon the defendant to protest, at his first opportunity, if his trial date was set for......
  • Pruitt v. State, No. 15S00-0109-DP-393.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 13, 2005
    ...from which it could be concluded that the amount and nature of the drug consumed would produce an involuntary statement. Layton v. State, 261 Ind. 251, 253-54, 301 N.E.2d 633, 635 (1973). The mere fact a statement is made by the defendant while under the influence of drugs, or that the defe......
  • State v. Smith, No. 6136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • September 13, 1978
    ...being transported to the police department for questioning. See State v. Hill, 294 N.C. 320, 240 S.E.2d 794, 802 (1978); Layton v. State, 261 Ind. 251, 301 N.E.2d 633, 635 In State v. Hill, supra, the defendant-appellant assigned as error the overruling of his objection to generalized opini......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...360, 368, 332 N.E.2d 213, 219. The scope of rebuttal evidence is a matter left to the trial court's discretion. Layton v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 251, 255, 301 N.E.2d 633, 636. In the case before us, Stateler's testimony did not merely bolster Jones' veracity concerning a collateral matter. ......
  • Mayes v. State, No. 2--1172A110
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 13, 1974
    ...the Utterback decision is binding upon this court: 'In Bryant v. State (1973), Ind., 301 N.E.2d 179 and in Layton v. State (1973), Ind., 301 N.E.2d 633, we held that under Criminal Rule 4 it was incumbent upon the defendant to protest, at his first opportunity, if his trial date was set for......
  • Pruitt v. State, No. 15S00-0109-DP-393.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 13, 2005
    ...from which it could be concluded that the amount and nature of the drug consumed would produce an involuntary statement. Layton v. State, 261 Ind. 251, 253-54, 301 N.E.2d 633, 635 (1973). The mere fact a statement is made by the defendant while under the influence of drugs, or that the defe......
  • State v. Smith, No. 6136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • September 13, 1978
    ...being transported to the police department for questioning. See State v. Hill, 294 N.C. 320, 240 S.E.2d 794, 802 (1978); Layton v. State, 261 Ind. 251, 301 N.E.2d 633, 635 In State v. Hill, supra, the defendant-appellant assigned as error the overruling of his objection to generalized opini......
  • 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