Opinion ID: 1999596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Confession Obtained by Force and Intimidation

Text: Finally, Appellant argues in his brief and amended brief that at the time of his arrest, he was physically battered by an unknown officer of the Marion County Sheriff's Department. The record indicates that an officer from the drug investigation unit of the department began to choke Appellant when Appellant indicated the money taken in the robbery had been used to buy drugs which had been consumed. The officer was then removed from the scene by other officers. Appellant was taken to the police station for interrogation. While agitated over this incident, Appellant nonetheless signed a waiver of his Miranda rights. He then tried to make a deal with the police. At trial, Officer Hawkins testified that Appellant wanted to walk away from these charges in exchange for information on the location of Samual Ricketts. The deal was refused. Appellant claims this testimony violated his Miranda rights because his confession was procured through violence and threats. We note that Appellant has filed a civil rights action in the Federal Court as a result of the beating incident. That action is still pending. While an accused's confession may not be procured through violence or threats which overcome his free will, the admissibility of a statement is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances to establish whether the statement was given voluntarily. Wagner, 474 N.E.2d at 484; Tawney v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 582. There is no indication here that Appellant's statements were the result of the attack by the unknown officer. Appellant was described as agitated, but signed a waiver of his rights and attempted to strike a deal with the police. Further, Appellant failed to object to this testimony when offered by Officer Hawkins. Our conclusion is that Appellant's statements were voluntary and admissible. Finally, we note that Appellant received aggravated sentences on both of his convictions. On May 14, 1987, we ordered the trial court to make a nunc pro tunc entry stating its reasons for aggravating Appellant's sentences. On July 8, 1987, the trial court complied with our order. We have reviewed the trial court's written findings and find they are sufficient to justify the imposition of aggravated sentences in this case. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. SHEPARD, C.J., DeBRULER, GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur.