Rouse v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 269S32,269S32 |
| Citation | 266 N.E.2d 209,255 Ind. 670 |
| Parties | Johnny Frank ROUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
G. Stanley Hood, Bruce R. Snyder, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant was idicted for the crime of
Defendant was indicted for the crime of to perpetrate a robbery. Defendant was tried by jury in the Kosciusko Circuit Court and was adjudged guilty of first degree murder.
Considering only the evidence most favorable to the State, we find that on May 12, 1967, at about 12:30 a.m., police officers found a man identified as Everett Bechtel lying on the floor of Pete and Beck's Tavern in Fort Wayne, Indiana. His death was caused by a shotgun blast which resulted in massive hemorrhaging.
A witness who testified at the defendant's trial stated that at about 12:00 a.m., he entered Cap's Rib Bar, which is just across the street from Pete and Beck's Tavern. Looking out the window, he saw two subjects standing on the steps of Pete and Beck's Tavern. There was a noise like a pop-gun and the witness looked back towards the tavern where he saw a man come running out the front door. The witness identified the defendant as being one of the three men that he saw.
Janet Van Dyke testified that early on May 12, 1967, about 12:30 a.m., defendant came to her apartment along with Larry Henderson and Morris Jones. Jones was holding his hand, which was hurt. Her testimony was supported by the testimony of Roger Miller.
Additionally, defendant signed a warning and a waiver and then proceeded to make a statement regarding his participation in the crime.
Defendant first complains that he was never adequately warned of his constitutional rights, especially his right to have a lawyer present prior to any questioning, even if he could not afford one, and that this lack of adequate warning precluded
him from making an intelligent waiver of his rights to the presence of an attorney. In the case before us, defendant was warned of his rights by Captain Chambers, who read the awarning to defendant. Defendant appeared to read along with Chambers and in fact asked what the words 'indigent' and 'pauper' meant. After being advised, defendant signed the waiver and then tried to secure the services of a lawyer. Unable to do so, he stated, according to Captain Chambers: 'I might as well tell you the whole story now without the aid of an attorney.' Miranda does not require 'that each police station must have a 'station house lawyer' present at all times to advise prisoners.' Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 724. Though a request for counsel has been made, an accused may, at a later time, waive his right to [255 Ind. 672] counsel. In the case before us, the warning and waiver read to the defendant, and signed by him, consisted of the following:
'YOUR RIGHTS
'FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT
PLACE STATION
DATE 5--18--67
TIME 1 45 P.M.
'Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer but one will be appointed for you, if and when you go to court and the court finds that you are a pauper. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering questions until you talk to a lawyer.
'WAIVER
'I have read the statement of my rights shown above. I understand what my rights are. I am willing to answer questions and make a statement. I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No pressure of any kind has been used against me.
WITNESS Lt. J. Ellenwood
WITNESS Sgt. Chambers
TIME 1 45 P.M.'
In Jones v. State (1969), Ind., 252 N.E.2d 572 () we held that an identical warning was adequate under the standards set out in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Morris Jones participated in this attempted robbery with the defendant and another person. Accordingly, we again hold that this warning was adequate and that the defendant intelligently waived his constitutional rights.
Defendant next alleges that reversible error was committed when the prosecution was able to admit a confession into evidence, over defendant's objections, before the corpus delicti of the crime charged was established by clear and independent evidence of probative value. This issue was also raised in Jones v. State (1969), Ind., 252 N.E.2d 572, 580, where we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rawls
...146 (1970); Mayzak v. United States, 402 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1968); Emler v. State, Ind., 286 N.E.2d 408 (1972); Rouse v. State, 255 Ind. 670, 266 N.E.2d 209 (1971); People v. Williams, 131 Ill.App.2d 149, 264 N.E.2d 901 (1970); People v. Campbell, 26 Mich.App. 196, 182 N.W.2d 4 (1970), cert......
-
State v. Grierson
...75, 436 S.W.2d 800 (1969); People v. Williams, 264 N.E.2d 901 (Ill.App.1970), rev'd sub nom. Williams v. Twomey, supra; Rouse v. State, 266 N.E.2d 209 (Ind.1971) (split decision), disapproved in Williams v. Twomey, supra; People v. Swift, 32 A.D.2d 183, 300 N.Y.S.2d 639 (1969), cert. denied......
-
United States ex rel. Williams v. Twomey, 71-1682.
...has been approved by a divided Supreme Court of Indiana in related cases of Jones v. State, 252 N.E.2d 572 (1969), and Rouse v. State, 266 N.E.2d 209 (1971). As above noted, it was likewise approved by the Appellate Court of Illinois in the appeal of the Illinois conviction here involved. P......
-
Lofton v. State
...clear that where a request for counsel has been made, an accused may, at a later time, waive his right to counsel. Rouse v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 670, 266 N.E.2d 209, 211. However, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived h......