Owens v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 1280S455,1280S455
• Parties: Robert Lee OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 108

431 N.E.2d 108

Robert Lee OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1280S455.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Richard P. Schaumann, Michigan City, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael G. Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

Appellant, Robert Lee Owens, was charged with and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal he contends that various statements made by him to police interrogators were erroneously admitted and that several photographs of the deceased victim were likewise erroneously admitted. The charges stemmed from a break-in of the prison laundry at the Indiana State Prison and the killing of the laundry superintendent. At the time of the crime appellant was an inmate of the prison.

I.

During interrogation in the prison on January 11, 1977, appellant gave an incriminating statement implicating himself in the burglary of the laundry in the course of which the victim Rice was killed. This statement was admitted over his objection that there was no adequate advisement of rights prior thereto comporting with the requirements set down in Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

On December 29, 1976, shortly after the killing of Rice, appellant, a prisoner, was taken into custody, confined in the IDU unit, a high security section, and subjected to an interrogation during which he gave no incriminating statements. Prior to this initial interrogation, appellant was read his rights as required by Miranda, and signed a written waiver of rights form, the efficacy of which is not challenged. On January 4, 1977, appellant was again interrogated. During this interrogation he executed waiver of rights as part of a consent to take a polygraph examination. Again, no incriminating statements were made. On January 11, 1977, prior to giving his first inculpatory statement, appellant was told by the interrogator that his constitutional rights were still in effect, and appellant responded that he was aware of this.

Appellant argues that by reason of the lapse of thirteen days between the first full advisement and the statement, the austere conditions in the IDU unit, and the multiple and prolonged interrogations during the period rendered the advice of rights insufficient. In Miranda v. Arizona, supra, the United States Supreme Court said:

"The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; a warning is a clearcut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time." 384 U.S. at 468-469, 86 S.Ct. at 1625.

This passage can be read as requiring a fresh advisement of rights prior to each separate session of interrogation. In Michigan v. Mosley, (1975) 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313, the Court strongly indicated that a second interrogation, following a first which had been terminated because of an assertion of the desire not to answer questions, must be preceded by full and complete Miranda warnings. In Westover v. United States, (1965) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, a companion case with Miranda, the Court held that the product of a second interrogation in fact preceded by full Miranda warnings is inadmissible if that second interrogation is a continuing part of a first interrogation which was initiated without any warnings whatever. However, here, we have no assertion by appellant of the wish not to answer questions or to have counsel, and the first interrogation was preceded by a full warning and effective waiver.

This Court has previously considered the question presented. We have held that there is no per se requirement that Miranda warnings be repeated in these circumstances. Grey v. State, (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 1348; Conrad v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789. The purpose of the Miranda advisement is to make the suspect aware of his privilege against self-incrimination, right to counsel, and right to discontinue interrogation. We understand the law to be that where at the commencement of custodial interrogation, the suspect has been given an advisement and made a waiver in accordance with the guidelines in Miranda, that advisement need not be repeated so long as the circumstance attending any interruption or adjournment of the process is such that the suspect has not been deprived of the opportunity to make an informed and intelligent assessment of his interests involved in the interrogation, including the right to cut off questioning. Michigan v. Mosley, supra. Upon the record presented here, appellant was made fully aware on December 29, 1976, of his rights before any questioning about the Rice killing. He voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences thereof, waived those rights and subjected himself to interrogation. On January 4, 1977, six days later, these same rights were brought to his attention, and he again relinquished them. On January 11, 1977, prior to resumption of his questioning he was given a general reminder of those rights by the interrogators, and made the response that he was still aware of those rights. During this time he was held in the IDU unit, having only one meal a day, institutional radio, bed without mattress, sink and toilet. The record also reveals however that appellant had spent a four-month period from August, 1976 to the first of December, 1976 in similar surroundings as punishment for institutional infractions, and therefore these conditions, experienced by him,...