State v. Wroe
Decision Date | 09 September 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 62A01–1403–CR–116.,62A01–1403–CR–116. |
Citation | 16 N.E.3d 462 |
Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant–Plaintiff, v. Jacob A. WROE, Appellee–Defendant. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Special Assistant to the State Public Defender, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Plainfield, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
BAKER
, Judge.
The State of Indiana appeals the trial court's order granting Jacob Wroe's motion to suppress all evidence related to a polygraph examination Wroe had taken, including the stipulation to its admissibility signed by Wroe and the State. Although we acknowledge the concerns raised by Wroe regarding the agreement that he signed, and have significant reservations about the reliability of polygraph examinations and their admissibility in court, we are compelled by precedent to reverse the trial court's order.
In July 2013, the Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report that three-year-old I.B., Wroe's niece, had disclosed that Wroe had touched her vaginal area in late June 2013. DCS informed the Tell City Police Department, which opened an investigation. On July 19, 2013, Lieutenant Detective Alan Malone conducted a forensic interview of I.B., who repeated the allegations regarding Wroe.
On July 29, 2013, Wroe voluntarily met with Lieutenant Malone at the police station. During that meeting, Wroe volunteered to take a polygraph test regarding I.B.'s accusations. In a prior criminal case against him, Wroe had taken and passed a polygraph test, resulting in the dismissal of all charges against him.
On July 31, 2013, Wroe returned to the police department for the polygraph examination. Police Chief Gregory Hendershot met with Wroe to go over the stipulation and agreement (the “Stipulation”) to be signed before the polygraph. Chief Hendershot read the document to Wroe out loud, as well as making it available for Wroe to read. Among other things, Chief Hendershot asked Wroe if he understood the terms of the Stipulation. Wroe stated that he did understand the document and then signed it. The prosecuting attorney's signature also appears on the document.1 In pertinent part, the Stipulation provides as follows:
On September 19, 2013, the State charged Wroe with one count of Class C felony child molesting. On January 16, 2014, Wroe filed a motion to suppress the Stipulation, the polygraph examination, and all other evidence related to the polygraph. Following a February 11, 2014, hearing on the motion, the trial court summarily granted it on February 19, 2014. On February 21, 2014, the State filed a motion to dismiss the charge, which the trial court granted on the same day. The State now appeals.
Deaton v. State, 999 N.E.2d 452, 456 (Ind.Ct.App.2013). Therefore, Wroe contends that I.B.'s testimony in this case would have been sufficient to obtain a conviction and, as a result, the grant of the motion to suppress did not preclude further prosecution.
We cannot agree. It is not the role of this Court “to review the evidence available to the State and make an independent determination whether prosecution is possible without the suppressed evidence.” State v. Aynes, 715 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)
. The strategic decision of whether to pursue a prosecution belongs to the attorneys representing the State, and it is not within our purview to second-guess that determination. Therefore, this argument is unavailing, and we proceed to consider the issue raised by the State in its appeal.
The State argues that the trial court erroneously granted Wroe's motion to suppress. When reviewing the grant of a motion to suppress evidence, we must determine whether the record contains substantial evidence of probative value supporting the trial court's decision. State v. Vanderkolk, 10 N.E.3d 585, 592 (Ind.Ct.App.2014)
. We will not reweigh the evidence, and because the State appeals from a negative judgment, it must show that the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence was contrary to law. Id.
As a general matter, Indiana courts look with disfavor on the admission of polygraph examinations into evidence in criminal proceedings. Consequently, our Supreme Court has held that polygraphs are admissible only when four prerequisites are met:
Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306, 308 (Ind.1996)
. In the instant case, the parties agree that because the issue was decided by a pretrial motion to suppress, the only Sanchez requirement at issue herein is the first one. A stipulation entered into by a defendant and the State before a polygraph examination is a binding contract. Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 440 (Ind.1999). Therefore, contract law principles control the use and interpretation of such stipulations. Id.
The trial court did not enter findings of fact or conclusions of law in granting Wroe's motion to suppress; as a result, we are uncertain on what basis the motion was granted. Moreover, Wroe's motion did not spell out the reasoning or legal theories underlying his request. On appeal, the State points to three reasons the trial court may have granted the motion, and Wroe makes only one substantive argument in favor of his position. We will address each of these in turn.
First, the State argues that to the extent the trial court may have found that the Stipulation was invalid because Wroe signed it without an attorney present, the trial court erred. Initially, we note that it does not appear that Wroe argued to the trial court that the Stipulation should be invalid merely because he was not represented by counsel when he signed it.
There are three potential sources of a criminal defendant's right to representation by counsel: the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution
. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 457, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). The right to counsel on this basis is merely a procedural safeguard to protect a person subject to custodial interrogation.
Id. Here, Wroe was neither in custody nor subject to interrogation at the time he decided to sign the Stipulation, nor does he make that argument on appeal. As a result, we do not find that he had a right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until the initiation of criminal proceedings against the defendant through the filing of criminal charges. Dullen v. State, 721 N.E.2d 241, 242 (Ind.1999)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conley v. State
...say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence regarding the polygraph examination. See State v. Wroe, 16 N.E.3d 462, 467–468 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (observing the different conclusions in Kochersperger and Caraway, stating that “[w]ithout expressing opinion on the resu......
-
State v. Allen
...of the grant of a motion to suppress, here the trial court entered no findings of fact to which we must defer. See State v. Wroe , 16 N.E.3d 462, 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (also observing that, in reviewing a summary suppression order, this court must rely on the arguments of the parties and......
-
Holden v. State
...courts look with disfavor on the admission of polygraph examinations into evidence in criminal proceedings." State v. Wroe , 16 N.E.3d 462, 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied . Nevertheless, our supreme court has held that the results of polygraph examinations are admissible when four ......
-
State v. Diego
...statement to police, it apparently made that determination, and "it is not within our purview to second-guess" it. State v. Wroe , 16 N.E.3d 462, 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied . Id. at 719 n.12.[2] The only issue the State raises in its request for rehearing is whether we incorrec......