Williams v. State, No. 781S192

Docket NºNo. 781S192
Citation423 N.E.2d 598
Case DateJuly 22, 1981
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 598

423 N.E.2d 598
Ivery Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 781S192.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 22, 1981.

Page 599

Douglas W. Meyer, Plainfield, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

This criminal case is before us on a petition to transfer from the Court of Appeals, First District. The opinion of that court is reported at 415 N.E.2d 118. We grant the petition for transfer and vacate the opinion below.

Appellant Williams was convicted in a trial to the court of criminal recklessness, a class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2(b); and failure to stop after causing injury, a class A misdemeanor, Ind.Code § 9-2-1-40(b).

The appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in: a) finding that Williams was knowingly advised of his constitutional rights before he made an incriminating statement; b) finding that he knowingly waived his constitutional right against self-incrimination; and c) admitting the incriminating statement into evidence; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt on each charge.

On August 25, 1979, at 12:30 a. m., Williams was drunk and driving his truck on Highway 36 when the truck struck a man riding a bicycle in the right-hand lane along the outer edge of the roadway. Williams did not stop. Later that afternoon a Bainbridge Town Marshall found Williams unconscious or asleep in his truck farther west along Highway 36. The marshall roused the appellant, advised him of his Miranda rights and proceeded to question him about the accident. Williams then said that he had driven from Tipton through Indianapolis on Highway 36. A chemical analysis of his blood showed .37% for blood alcohol.

I.

At trial, Williams objected to the admission of his statement on the ground that he was so drunk that he could not knowingly have waived his Miranda rights. The trial court conducted a hearing on the admissibility of the statement. The evidence at this hearing was the testimony of the town marshall who found Williams on the highway and elicited the statement.

The marshall testified that he discovered Williams "passed out" in the truck, that it took him about two minutes to awaken him by shaking him by the shoulders, and that the appellant was unable to walk to the patrol car without his assistance. The trial court asked the marshall if Williams understood what was being said to him. "I believe he did," replied the marshall. He also testified that a "breathalyzer" test administered on Williams within forty-five minutes of this encounter registered .37% for blood alcohol. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the statement.

The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the waiver and the statement were voluntary, and in reviewing the trial court's ruling in these matters we do not weigh the evidence but simply determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding. See, e. g., Rodgers v. State, (1979) Ind., 385...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Carter v. State, No. 3-880A250
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 20, 1981
    ...(1972), 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732; Johnson v. State (1975), 164 Ind.App. 12, 326 N.E.2d 637; cf., Williams v. State (1981), Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598 (# 781-S-192, handed down July 22, 1981) (same principle applied to offense of criminal recklessness, IC 1976, 35-42-2-2(b) (Burns Code Ed., 19......
  • Allen v. State, No. 181
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 23, 1982
    ...not weigh the evidence but simply determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding." Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598, The evidence upon this matter conflicts. Defendant points to his mental and physical debilitation, his lack of food and sleep, the absenc......
  • Drossos v. State, No. 4-981A132
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 16, 1982
    ...contention, allegedly supported by language in DeVaney v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732 and Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598 that, while the evidence was sufficient to support the charges of causing death by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, it did not ......
3 cases
  • Carter v. State, No. 3-880A250
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 20, 1981
    ...(1972), 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732; Johnson v. State (1975), 164 Ind.App. 12, 326 N.E.2d 637; cf., Williams v. State (1981), Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598 (# 781-S-192, handed down July 22, 1981) (same principle applied to offense of criminal recklessness, IC 1976, 35-42-2-2(b) (Burns Code Ed., 19......
  • Allen v. State, No. 181
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 23, 1982
    ...the evidence but simply determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding." Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598, The evidence upon this matter conflicts. Defendant points to his mental and physical debilitation, his lack of food and sleep, the absence of ......
  • Drossos v. State, No. 4-981A132
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 16, 1982
    ...contention, allegedly supported by language in DeVaney v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732 and Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 598 that, while the evidence was sufficient to support the charges of causing death by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, it did not ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT