Case Title: Minnick v. State

Citation: 467 N.E.2d 754

Docket Number: 1282S467

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1984-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
467 N.E.2d 754 (1984)
William A. MINNICK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1282S467.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
September 7, 1984.
Rehearing Denied November 30, 1984.
Woodrow S. Nasser, Terre Haute, for appellant.
*755 Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Joseph N. Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
GIVAN, Chief Justice.
Appellant was convicted of Murder by a jury. The jury found appellant had committed the aggravated acts of robbery and rape in conjunction with the murder. The court sentenced appellant to death.
The facts are: Martha Payne was killed during the late afternoon of October 26, 1981. Based on their investigation, the police went to the home of appellant at 4:45 A.M. on the twenty-seventh. The police asked appellant to accompany them to the station to answer questions. Appellant voluntarily complied. Appellant was provided the standard Miranda warnings and signed a waiver of those rights. Appellant orally indicated he did not wish the assistance of counsel. He indicated to the police he had been to the victim's home that day, but he did not admit any role in the murder. At approximately 7:00 A.M., on the twenty-seventh, the following discussion was conducted between appellant, his stepfather and mother Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, State Police Officer Hanlon, Greencastle Police Officer Cline and the Putnam County Prosecutor Delbert Brewer.
This discussion clearly demonstrates two important facts; appellant was in custody and while in custody appellant asserted a request for the assistance of counsel. At that time the police and the prosecutor correctly stopped the interrogation. A search warrant was obtained and the body samples were taken. Appellant was then transported to the Putnam County jail. At 3:00 P.M. on the twenty-seventh, Putnam County Deputy Sheriff Hendrich went to appellant's cell and twice asked appellant if he would like to answer questions. Appellant assented and was taken to be questioned by Hendrich and State Police Officer Smith. The record demonstrates appellant did not request this interrogation, nor did he take any action to initiate the questioning. Appellant gave the police a self-incriminating statement which was introduced into evidence as State's exhibit 63 over the objection of appellant. This was reversible error.
This Court has said:
The United States Supreme Court in Edwards dealt with a situation analogous to the case at bar. After initial questioning, the defendant in Edwards requested an attorney. The police then ceased the questioning. However, the police later, after providing a new set of warnings, began to interrogate the defendant. He then produced a confession which was introduced as evidence. In Edwards the court held:
This cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
All Justices concur.