Schmidt v. State, 967S87
| Decision Date | 23 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 967S87,967S87 |
| Citation | 256 Ind. 218,267 N.E.2d 554 |
| Parties | Edith Louise SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Patrick N. Ryan, Jack B. Welchons, Marion, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Richard V. Bennett, Deputy Atty. Gen., William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause in which she raises a question which we feel needs further comment. In her original brief she had argued that State's Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were tape recordings of statements made by her to police officers, should have been excluded by the trial court for the reason that they were partially inaudible. She cites as authority for this proposition the case of Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. The Brady case holds that where a confession of an accomplice was suppressed by the state there was a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not have such a situation in the case at bar. It is true that small portions of the tapes in question were inaudible. However, they were highly repetitious and the inaudible portions detracted very little, if any, from their total content. In addition, these were not tapes made by third parties or persons unavailable to the defense. These tapes recorded statements made by the appellant herself. She testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress repeating essentially the same statements which were on the tapes. We do not find where she was deprived of any exculpatory statements by reason of the fact that small portions of the tapes were inaudible.
Other matters raised in the petition for rehearing were adequately dealt with in the original opinion, Ind., 265 N.E.2d 219.
Petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
PRENTICE, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamar v. State, 471S106
...... Sutton et al. v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 305, 145 N.E.2d 425. In 1970, in the case of Schmidt v. State (1970), Ind., 265 N.E.2d 219, rehearing denied March 23, 1971, Ind., 267 N.E.2d 554, the admissibility of tape recordings was not challenged ......
-
Bugg v. State, 375S75
...378; Owens v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 693, 266 N.E.2d 612; Schmidt v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 443, 265 N.E.2d 219, reh. denied (1971), 256 Ind. 218, 267 N.E.2d 554. In another line of our decisions, we have found that statements of defendants were volunteered and spontaneous, and not in respo......
-
Williams v. State, 3-280
...v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 294, 295 N.E.2d 366 and Schmidt v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 443, 265 N.E.2d 219, rehearing denied (1971) 256 Ind. 218, 267 N.E.2d 554, modified (1973) 261 Ind. 81, 300 N.E.2d 86, and by the principles of collateral estoppel and "evenhanded justice." We hold the prose......
-
Allen v. State, 51A01-0207-PC-248.
...and, therefore, it appears this allegation would have failed on the pleading for a second reason. See, e.g., Schmidt v. State, 256 Ind. 218, 267 N.E.2d 554, 555 (1971) (where defendant's Brady argument failed because she had not been deprived of evidence by the ...