Schmitt v. State, No. 84S00-9905-CR-282.
| Docket Nº | No. 84S00-9905-CR-282. |
| Citation | 730 N.E.2d 147 |
| Case Date | May 08, 2000 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
730 N.E.2d 147
Erick S. SCHMITT, Appellant (Defendant Below),v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
No. 84S00-9905-CR-282.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 8, 2000.
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Priscilla J. Fossum, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
In this direct appeal, appellant Erick Schmitt claims the trial court erred in admitting Schmitt's confession into evidence over allegations that the police offered leniency in exchange for his statement.
A jury found Schmitt guilty of reckless homicide, a class C felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-5; felony murder, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1; robbery, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1; and attempted murder, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-41-5-1. The trial court sentenced him to seventy-five years.
Statement of the Facts
On the night of March 10, 1998, Erick Schmitt and two friends, Ryan Specht and
Both armed, the two men ran inside the gas station, with Schmitt in the lead. Upon entering, they discovered two people in the store the store, Charlie Simpson, the store clerk, and Brett Tracy, a customer. Schmitt fatally shot Simpson three times in the head and then shot Tracy once in the face. The two then quickly emptied the cash registers and fled the scene.
Tipped off by an informant, the police arrested Specht the following day; he confessed his part in the robbery and implicated Schmitt and Evans as accomplices. The police then moved to arrest Schmitt; they read him his Miranda rights, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of a police vehicle. While Schmitt initially denied any involvement in the murder, upon seeing Specht in the backseat of a different police vehicle, he admitted participating.
After arriving at the police station, Schmitt was again read his Miranda rights. He signed a waiver of rights form, and agreed to give a videotaped statement. Schmitt then gave a detailed account of the incident, admitting his part in the shootings of Simpson and Tracy.
Admissibility of Confession
Alleging that the investigating detectives promised the death penalty would not be pursued if he gave a confession stating his remorse for the shootings, Schmitt asserts that his confession was involuntary and inadmissible because it was obtained by a promise of mitigation of punishment. The State argues both that Schmitt's confession was knowing and voluntary and that the police tendered no offer of leniency.
In determining the voluntariness of a statement, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Fields v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1315 (Ind. 1997). The trial court attempts to insure that a confession was not obtained "through inducement, violence, threats or other improper influences so as to overcome the free will of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. State, No. 15S00-0109-DP-393.
...the defendant's Page 115 confession was voluntarily given." Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763, 767 (Ind.2002) (quoting Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 A. Voluntary Statement In evaluating a claim that a statement was not given voluntarily, the trial court is to consider the totality of ......
-
Crain v. State, No. 29S00-9803-CR-180.
...defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights, and that the defendant's confession was voluntarily given." Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. 2000) (citing Berry v. State, 703 N.E.2d 154 (Ind.1998) (citing in turn Owens v. State, 427 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1981))). Second, whe......
-
Clark v. State, No. 48S00-0205-CR-270.
...under the Indiana Constitution is to show voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller, 770 N.E.2d at 767 (citing Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. 2000)). On appeal, the trial court's determination is reviewed in the same way as other sufficiency matters. Griffith v. State, 78......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 20S04–1307–CR–471.
...58(A).Standard of Review Our justice system entrusts the admission of evidence to the trial court's sound discretion. Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind.2000). We review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress deferentially, construing conflicting evidence in the ......
-
Pruitt v. State, No. 15S00-0109-DP-393.
...the defendant's Page 115 confession was voluntarily given." Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763, 767 (Ind.2002) (quoting Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 A. Voluntary Statement In evaluating a claim that a statement was not given voluntarily, the trial court is to consider the totality of ......
-
Crain v. State, No. 29S00-9803-CR-180.
...defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights, and that the defendant's confession was voluntarily given." Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. 2000) (citing Berry v. State, 703 N.E.2d 154 (Ind.1998) (citing in turn Owens v. State, 427 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1981))). Second, whe......
-
Clark v. State, No. 48S00-0205-CR-270.
...under the Indiana Constitution is to show voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller, 770 N.E.2d at 767 (citing Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. 2000)). On appeal, the trial court's determination is reviewed in the same way as other sufficiency matters. Griffith v. State, 78......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 20S04–1307–CR–471.
...58(A).Standard of Review Our justice system entrusts the admission of evidence to the trial court's sound discretion. Schmitt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind.2000). We review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress deferentially, construing conflicting evidence in the ......