Ritchie v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 82S00-8710-CR-971,82S00-8710-CR-971 |
| Citation | 526 N.E.2d 699 |
| Parties | Patrick E. RITCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Stephen C. Haas, Evansville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in a conviction of appellant of Robbery, a Class B felony, and a finding that he was an habitual offender. Appellant was sentenced to a term of ten (10) years enhanced by thirty (30) years by reason of the fact that he was an habitual offender.
The facts are: On January 27, 1987, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Ralph Gunn was working at Ritter's Liquor Store in Vanderburgh County. A man later identified as appellant entered the store and asked for a pack of cigarettes. He then produced a butcher knife and stated, "[Y]ou're dead." Appellant took approximately $100 from the store then left without injuring Gunn.
Following the robbery, police showed Gunn six photographs. He picked out appellant's picture as the one that "resembled him." Stephanie Johnson and Doris Turpin both testified that shortly after the time of the robbery appellant came to their place of employment, and at the time, he was playing with a knife later identified as the robbery weapon, and also that he had money in his billfold. Officer David Gulledge arrested appellant at a friend's house and found a butcher knife, matching the description of the one mentioned above, lying on the kitchen counter top in plain view. Appellant was read his Miranda rights and then gave a statement concerning the robbery.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the statement he gave to police following his arrest. He claims it was not knowingly and voluntarily given because he was intoxicated to the extent he did not understand the Miranda waiver, and further the interrogating officer made threats to him of a more severe sentence if he did not make a statement. He also testified that police told him if he would make a statement they could use him in some drug busts and that he would have nothing to worry about.
Police officers testified that the Miranda rights were read twice to appellant, that the readings were an hour apart, and that appellant was given time for reflection after the initial advisement before he made his statement. Officers testified that appellant was not intoxicated. The police further testified that they had not made any threats or promises to appellant.
There was thus a conflict in the evidence submitted to the trial court for its determination on the suppression of the statement. This Court will not reweigh such evidence and if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the finding of voluntariness the trial court will not be reversed. Richardson v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 497. We find no reversible error concerning the admission of appellant's statement.
Appellant claims the...
To continue reading
Request your trial