Moore v. State, 1182S433
| Decision Date | 05 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1182S433,1182S433 |
| Citation | 467 N.E.2d 710 |
| Parties | John H. MOORE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Joseph M. Dietz, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction for robbery, a class A felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1. The case was tried before a jury. Appellant was a sixteen-year-old juvenile who was tried as an adult. Appellant was sentenced to a term of twenty-two years.
The issue dealt with in this appeal is whether appellant's assertion of his right to counsel and the subsequent police-initiated interrogation in the absence of counsel rendered his confession and second taped statement inadmissible.
The facts pertinent to the appeal show that on January 16, 1982, Arthur Jordan was working part-time for Metro Taxicab Company. At 2:30 a.m. on January 17, 1982, he responded to a call to pick up a passenger at 1954 North LaSalle Street. Two men came out of the house and got into the cab. Mr. Jordan started driving toward the 2300 block of Winthrop. When Mr. Jordan arrived at the 2300 Block of Alvord Street, one of the passengers told him to stop the cab. Both men pulled knives on him, took two hundred dollars, kicked him out of the car and drove away.
An investigation of the incident commenced, and it was determined that appellant and Arthur Ausley were the two men that emerged from 1954 North LaSalle Street and entered the cab on the night in question. Appellant's parents were telephoned and were asked to bring their son down to the police station for questioning. On January 18, 1982, at about 5:30 p.m., appellant and his parents arrived at the police station.
After appellant had been processed through the juvenile branch Detective Trathen placed him and his parents in an interrogation room. Detective Trathen read appellant his rights, and before finishing the reading Trathen stopped and advised Moore he was under arrest for robbery. Detective Trathen then left the room for twenty minutes so that appellant could confer with his parents. Afterwards, Detective Trathen returned and finished reading the waiver of rights form. Appellant and his parents signed a police department waiver acknowledging that Detective Trathen had advised appellant of his right to stop questioning at any time if he decided to have an attorney.
Detective Trathen then attempted to take a recorded statement. He read appellant his rights again and asked him:
"Q. Knowing all your rights do you wish to give this statement at this time?
A. If you have a lawyer, can you call him?
Q. Do you want a lawyer now?
A. I already have one.
Q. Do you want a lawyer now?
A. Yes."
At this point Detective Trathen explained to appellant and his parents that once appellant expressed his rights to have an attorney, he could no longer question him in regard to the investigation. Detective Trathen stated:
Appellant then admitted:
"Man, I want to get this right, we did it; but I didn't stick the man; Arthur did."
Detective Trathen left the room to consult with his superiors to the propriety of taping a second statement. Appellant was not asked to sign a separate rights waiver before the commencement of the second taping statement because Detective Trathen believed that the first rights waiver was sufficient. Detective Trathen then took the second taped statement. In the statement the appellant was advised of his rights and he waived them in this manner:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rider v. State
...defendant has voluntarily and knowingly relinquished his right to counsel must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Moore v. State (1984) Ind., 467 N.E.2d 710, cert. denied (1985) 469 U.S. 1229, 105 S.Ct. 1229, 84 L.Ed.2d 366; Clark v. State (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1090. This requireme......
-
Doerner v. State
...was present or the right thereto was voluntarily and knowingly relinquished prior to the commencement of the interrogation. Moore v. State (1984), Ind, 467 N.E.2d 710; Ortiz v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 549, 356 N.E.2d 1188. When the right of counsel is asserted during questioning that process......
-
Sleek v. State, 1185
...during custodial interrogation by the police. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Moore v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 710, cert. denied (1985), 469 U.S. 1229, 105 S.Ct. 1229, 84 L.Ed.2d 366. When the right to have counsel is asserted, the suspect is n......