Opinion ID: 2240273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Given to the Police

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred by admitting the statements he made to Marshal Huffman because his intoxicated state precluded a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Assuming arguendo that appellant's intoxicated state rendered his waiver of rights invalid, we find that the admission into evidence of the statements he gave to the marshal to be harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). After the marshal advised appellant of his Miranda rights in the police car, the marshal inquired, Henry, have you got yourself in trouble? Hensley responded that he brought a .22 caliber rifle to his wife's house as a Christmas present for his son Jesse; the gun was loaded. Hensley stated that they were showing or playing with the gun when it discharged. After Hensley stated that he had consumed a few beers, he invoked his right to remain silent and the marshal ceased questioning. Several family members testified at trial about statements made by appellant during the incident. Outside Bobby Jo's bedroom door, appellant told Bobby Jo that she had done [him] wrong, so... . After shooting her, appellant stated that she had done him dirty. After Jesse gained control of the rifle from his father, appellant demanded the gun back so he could finish his job. Hensley's custodial statement indicated that he brought a rifle to his wife's house. Taken together, the admissible statements appellant made in the presence of his family and overwhelming direct evidence of matters not in dispute are the practical equivalent of the substance of the custodial statement. Cf., Malott, 485 N.E.2d 879. Appellant was not burdened by his custodial statements because the introduction of these statements neither forced him to take the stand to deny the substance of the statements nor constricted defense counsel's choice of trial tactics. Lloyd v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1062; Greer v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 20, 245 N.E.2d 158. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., concurs in result.