Opinion ID: 2097440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Clean-up Statement

Text: Appellant claims the substance of the clean-up statement should not have been used against him because it was obtained with a promise that he would not be charged with the burglaries he cleaned-up. He acknowledges that even a statement which is not admissible as substantive evidence may nonetheless be used for impeachment, provided the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies appropriate standards. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Mills v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1236. He claims the statement was given after he was promised immunity from the prosecution on the burglaries he cleaned-up, and allegedly without the benefit of a waiver of his Miranda rights. Van Cleave initially mentioned the twenty-five burglaries during a confession to the burglary for which he was eventually convicted. Before making that confession, Van Cleave signed a waiver of rights. In the confession itself he stated again that he was aware of his rights, that he had read and understood them, and that no force, threats, or promises had been made by the police in order to take the statement. After confessing to that burglary, he was asked, Have you been involved in any other burglaries on the west side? He then admitted twenty to twenty-five burglaries. A few days later, the actual clean-up statement was taken after appellant drove through west-side neighborhoods with the police and showed them some of the homes he had burglarized. It was at this time he was told he would not be charged with the other crimes. After Van Cleave was impeached with the substance of his clean-up statement, his attorney asked him on re-direct if he had been informed the statement would never be used against him. Appellant responded, no, he had only been told he would not be charged with the burglaries. Although appellant's statement would not have been admissible against him on the issue of his guilt in the listed burglaries had that issue been litigated, it was shown nonetheless to have been the product of a rational and free will. As such, it was properly used for impeachment after appellant stated he had told the court about all the crimes in which he had been involved. The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. Harris, 401 U.S. at 226, 91 S.Ct. at 646, 28 L.Ed.2d at 5.