Opinion ID: 2233171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Voluntariness of the Statement

Text: The second allegation of error concerns the statement given by the defendant and later introduced at trial over his objection. The defendant asserts that the statement was rendered involuntary due to the pain killing drugs he had been administered following surgery. As mentioned earlier the defendant had been wounded during the exchange of gunfire and had undergone emergency surgery. That same evening two police officers took the defendant's statement. Present at the hospital were the two police officers, the defendant and his mother. As support for the proposition that the statement was involuntary, the defendant directs the attention of this Court to Townsend v. Sain (1963), 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770. The facts surrounding that particular opinion were of such a peculiar nature to render it inapplicable to the case now before this Court. Townsend had been given a drug which would have produced a result similar to truth serum. The holding of that opinion is not that any confession obtained from a suspect, while that suspect was receiving medication, is rendered inadmissible per se. Rather, the standard to be applied in determining the voluntariness of the statement is the following: The question is whether, looking at all the circumstances, the confession was free and voluntary, and not induced by any violence, threats, promises, or other improper influence. Gibson v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 23, 29, 271 N.E.2d 706, at 709. The two police officers taped the conversation held at the hospital, a transcribed copy of which was placed into evidence. The officers were careful to explain to the defendant his right to remain silent, the right to counsel and the right to have counsel appointed for him. He was, also told he could stop the questioning at any time. Additionally, several inquiries were made as to the defendant's condition. The remainder of the questioning and statement indicates that the defendant was able to lucidly recall all of the events of that day and to clearly answer all of the questions. The drugs administered to the defendant were not of the type to overcome his resistance as those in Townsend. It is the opinion of this Court that the confession made by the defendant was done knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.