Case Name: Dwayne FRENCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1989-07-12
Citations: 540 N.E.2d 1205
Docket Number: No. 45S00-8710-CR-991
Parties: Dwayne FRENCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Judges: SHEPARD, C.J., and PIVARNIK, J., concur.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 540
Pages: 1205–1209

Head Matter:
Dwayne FRENCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 45S00-8710-CR-991.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 12, 1989.
Nathaniel Ruff, Appellate Div., Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Preston W. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

Opinion:
GIVAN, Justice.
Appellant was charged in two counts, one Murder and one Felony Murder. A jury trial resulted in a finding of guilty on both counts. However, the trial judge merged the counts and sentenced appellant only on the felony murder count. He received a sentence of forty (40) years.
The facts are: In September of 1985, 12-year-old Linda Perez disappeared from her home in Gary, Indiana. She was last seen about 8:00 p.m. by her brother, who saw her playing at the residence of appel lant. i
The victim's body was subsequently found partially buried in a vacant lot next to appellant's home. On November 5, 1985, her body was exhumed from a shallow grave. The following day her underpants were found close to the grave. Dr. Dean Hawley, a forensic pathologist, performed the autopsy. He found two stab wounds in the victim's body. The stab wound which caused her death was through the left lung. The other stab wound was in the right groin. Dr. Hawley testified that the stab wounds were made with a cutting blade.
During the course of an investigation, Police Officer Michael Valsi of the Gary Police Department arranged for the administration of a polygraph test to five people, including appellant and his sister. All persons involved were notified that the taking of a polygraph was voluntary.
Appellant's parents, Betty Love and Edgar French, were contacted as to whether the children would be willing to take a polygraph examination. Both parents cooperated fully with the police. Mrs. Love brought appellant and his sister to Polygraphs Unlimited, which was operated by Ronald Flemming, who was also a Gary Police Officer. When Mrs. Love arrived at Polygraphs Unlimited with the children, she was advised by Officer Valsi that she could either sit in the examination room or in the lobby. Mrs. Love chose to sit in the lobby.
Appellant's sister was examined first with no remarkable result. Shortly after the examination of appellant began, Flem-ming advised Valsi that appellant was not telling the truth,. Upon hearing that remark, appellant burst into tears and stated that he was in fact telling the truth. At this point, appellant's mother entered the room and attempted to console him. The polygraph examination was terminated immediately and Officer Valsi advised Mrs. Love that her son should be taken to police headquarters, that she could take him herself, or he would take him to police headquarters. It was determined that Officer Valsi should transport appellant to headquarters.
Mrs. Love indicated that she would take her daughter home and pick up her husband. Appellant was not questioned during the ride to police headquarters. Appellant was not questioned before his parents arrived at the police station. After the parents arrived, appellant was placed under arrest and his parents were so advised. In the presence of the parents, appellant was given his full Miranda warnings.
Officer Martinez explained each of the rights to appellant and to his parents in the presence of three other police officers. Appellant and his parents indicated that they understood the rights. Appellant and each of his parents initialed each of the rights.
After the rights were explained, appellant was allowed to confer with his parents in private for as long as they desired. They spent about fifteen to twenty minutes together. During this consultation, appellant told his parents that he had killed the victim. After conferring with his parents, appellant indicated he wanted to give a statement. Officer Martinez explained that appellant would have to sign a waiver of rights in order to give a statement. Appellant was asked again if he had any question about his rights. Appellant indicated he wished to voluntarily waive his rights. The waiver section was then signed by appellant, his parents, and the four police officers in attendance.
In his statement, appellant admitted that he had killed and buried the victim. After the statement was concluded, appellant and his parents were asked to review the doe-ument. Appellant and each parent initialed every page. During the entire time, appellant was treated kindly and politely. Police officers did not coerce him or make promises to him. He was allowed to use the bathroom, he was given water and pop, and he was allowed to take breaks as he gave his statement.
Appellant claims his confession was involuntary because of improprieties at the time of the polygraph examination. He claims he should have been given his Miranda warnings prior to the examination. However, the evidence in this case is that appellant was not in custody at the time the polygraph examination was administered. Both he and his parents were told that the submission to the polygraph was entirely voluntary and they agreed that appellant should take the test.
At the time, the test was being administered successively to five different people in an effort to ascertain what any of them might know about the incident. The requirements of Miranda do not apply except under custodial interrogation. When it was first indicated by the polygraph operator that appellant was not telling the truth, the questioning ceased. Appellant did not at that time make any statement admitting guilt; in fact, he denied that he was not telling the truth.
Prior to being placed under arrest, appellant was given full access to both parents, his Miranda rights were given in the presence of both parents, and each indicated they were anxious that the truth be discovered. It was only then that appellant was placed in custody and in the presence of his parents gave a full statement of his guilt. Under such cireumstances, appellant's statement was properly received. See Johansen v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1128.
The trial court did not err in permitting evidence of appellant's confession to go to the jury.
The trial court is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and PIVARNIK, J., concur.
DeBRULER, J., dissents with separate opinion in which DICKSON, J., concurs. «