Sotelo v. State
Decision Date | 12 March 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 574S89,574S89 |
Citation | Sotelo v. State, 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844, 51 Ind.Dec. 578 (Ind. 1976) |
Parties | Raul Rudy SOTELO, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
A. Martin Katz, Katz & Brenman, Merrillville, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Joseph J. Reiswerg, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The Appellant, Raul Rudy Sotelo, of Gary, Indiana, was convicted on October 2, 1974, of the first degree murder of one Carrie Louise Duncan.A motion to correct errors was filed with the trial court on December 9, 1974.It is from the denial of this motion on January 14, 1975, the the Appellant presents this appeal.
The evidence at trial revealed that at about 7:40 a.m. on September 27, 1973, the Appellant borrowed the automobile of a co-worker, Alberto Alverez, explaining that he did not feel well.Shortly after 8:00 a.m. the Appellant offered a ride to a friend, Adrian Martinez, who was walking from his home to the high school he attended.The two drove around for some time and went to the home of one John Jacquez.Jacquez was not home at this time, but was found there when the Appellant and Martinez returned a short time later.Jacquez joined his two friends in their drive.
At approximately 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. the Appellant and his two passengers came across two girls walking along the street.One of the girls, Carrie Louise Duncan, the deceased, accepted a ride with them, while the other proceeded to her home.The Appellant and his three passengers drove to an isolated area of Ridgelawn Cemetery in Gary and stayed there approximately five minutes.They then drove to the home of Nini Badillo.The evidence revealed that Carrie Louise Duncan was at this time twelve years old.
Upon their arrival at the home of Nini Badillo, the Appellant and the deceased went into one of the bedrooms of the home for some twenty minutes.Their companions watched television.The Appellant, around 12:00 noon, announced that he was taking the victim home and left with her.He returned alone some ten to twenty-five minutes later.
The body of the deceased was found later that afternoon at Ridgelawn Cemetery.The partially-clad body showed a number of wounds.Articles of clothing were strewn around the scene of the crime.
After first denying any wrongdoing, the Appellant confessed to the killing.His rendition of events following his departure with the victim from the Badillo home is as follows:
We consider first the admissibility of this confession.
The Appellant urges error in the admission of his confession into evidence on two grounds.First, it is asserted that the Appellant was not sufficiently advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, (1966)384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.Second, it is contended that police conduct in the administration of a lie detector test of the Appellant was fraudulent and coercive, rendering the confession involuntary and inadmissible.
The waiver of rights signed by the Appellant which gives rise to the first contention reads as follows:
'I, Raul Rudy SOTELO, am 18 years old.My date of birth is November 2, 1954.I live at 1125Dallas Street, Gary, Indiana.The person to whom I give the following voluntary statement, D. Kasper, D. Longfellow having identified and made himself known as a Detective of the Lake County Police Department, DULY WARNED AND ADVISED ME, AND I KNOW:
1.Before making this statement, I was advised that I have the right to remain silent and that anything I might say, may or will be used against me in a court of law.
2.That I have the right to consult with an attorney of my own choice before saying anything, and that an attorney may be present while I am making any statement or throughout the course of any conversation with any police officer if I so choose.
3.That I can stop and request an attorney at any time during the course of the taking of any statement or during the course of any such conversation.
4.That in the course of any conversation, I can refuse to answer any further questions, and remain silent, thereby terminating the conversation.
5.That if I cannot hire an attorney, one will be provided for me.'
The Appellant finds error in the words 'of my choice' in Section 2 and the words 'may or will' in Section 1.'Of my choice' is said to create ambiguity regarding the appointment of counsel prior to interrogation since one only has a choice of counsel when he can afford it.It is thus implied that pauper counsel is not possible at that time.'May or will' is found deficient in that it should be more emphatic.It should read 'can and will.'
In Jones v. State, (1967), 253 Ind. 235, 252 N.E.2d 572, this court discussed the adequacy of the wording of such advisements.We quoted with approval Coyote v. United States(10th Cir.1967)380 F.2d 305 at 308:
An extensive hearing on the Appellant's motion to suppress the confession was held by the trial court.Evidence, including a tape recording of the Appellant's interrogation, revealed that the Appellant was orally advised of his rights in addition to having the waiver form presented to him.That oral advisement did not contain the language complained of in the written form.It simply said, in part, that anything said 'can' be used against him in a court and that he had a right to an attorney.Testimony at the suppression hearing also revealed that prior to interrogation the Appellant was asked if he understood the waiver form he was reading.He replied that he did because he had been arrested before.
The waiver form used by police here is not on its face ambiguous or misleading.A common sense reading does not lead to the Appellant's conclusions of ambiguity.Moreover, evidence heard at the suppression hearing clearly established that the Appellant was not subjectively misled.There is sufficient evidence on the record to support the trial court's conclusion that the Appellant's confession was knowingly given.
The Appellant's contention that his confession was involuntary revolves around his submission to a polygraph examination on the night of his confession.The Appellant told police that he wished to take a polygraph test to show he was truthful.It is contended that the administration of this test amounted to actual or psychological coercion.This court recognized the potentially coercive effects of polygraph examination in Montes v. State, (1975) Ind., 332 N.E.2d 786.We wrote at 792--793:
Unlike Montes v. State, supra, the trial court in this case was presented with a complete record of the polygraph examination.The test had been videotaped and the recording and a written transcript of it were presented to the trial...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Chambers v. State
...Murphy v. State, (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 411. Although the photographs may depict gory, revolting or inflammatory details of the crime when presented to the jury, this is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence.
Sotelo v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844; Meredith v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these exhibits. There is thus no error here. V. Defendant does not dispute the sufficiency... -
Adams v. State
...substantial evidence of probative value supporting the determination of the trier of fact, that determination will be upheld. We will not reweigh the evidence of the credibility of the witnesses.
Sotelo v. State, (1976) Ind., 342 N.E.2d 844; Dragon v. State, (1974) Ind., 316 N.E.2d 827. ISSUE II This question is controlled by Coleman v. State, (1975) Ind., 339 N.E.2d 51, wherein we held that a defendant convicted of both kidnapping and armed felony (kidnapping), both charges... -
Young v. State
...reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and whenever there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the verdict, such verdict will not be disturbed. Stacker v. State, (1976) Ind., 348 N.E.2d 648;
Sotelo v. State, (1976) Ind., 342 N.E.2d 844. The question of sanity is an issue to be resolved by the trier of fact, Stacker v. State, supra, Sotelo v. State, supra, Blake v. State, (1975) Ind., 323 N.E.2d 227. The defendant's argumentsuch verdict will not be disturbed. Stacker v. State, (1976) Ind., 348 N.E.2d 648; Sotelo v. State, (1976) Ind., 342 N.E.2d 844. The question of sanity is an issue to be resolved by the trier of fact, Stacker v. State, supra, Sotelo v. State, supra, Blake v. State, (1975) Ind., 323 N.E.2d 227. The defendant's argument upon this issue goes merely to the weight and credibility of the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrists. Both witnesses... -
Quinn v. State
...pictures involving a crime such as those in this record are relevant to the questions at issue they are admissible. The mere fact that they may be gory, revolting or inflammatory does not make them inadmissible.
Sotelo v. State, (1976) Ind., 342 N.E.2d 844, 51 Ind.Dec. 578; Wilson v. State, (1975) Ind., 333 N.E.2d 755, 48 Ind.Dec. 663; Meredith v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 233, 214 N.E.2d 385, 7 Ind.Dec. 692. We therefore hold the trial court did not err in admitting...