Opinion ID: 2103748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: April 11, 1991, Statement

Text: The defendant finally objects to admission of his statement of April 11 confirming the truth of his statement to Detective Brown the previous night. He again argues that he was not re-advised of his Miranda rights. In this incident, the defendant asked to speak with the sheriff, who went to the defendant's cell and said, You wanted to see me. Id. The defendant responded, I just wanted you to know that what I told him last night was the truth. Record at 3660. We do not find the sheriff's response to the defendant's request to constitute an interrogation. The defendant's remarks were made freely, voluntarily, and spontaneously, and not in response to questioning. The sheriff was not required to give a new Miranda warning. See Hopkins v. State (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 345, 349, reh'g denied. See also Robey v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 145, 148. Not every statement uttered by a police officer which is punctuated with a question mark will necessarily constitute an interrogation. Rather it is necessary to view the statement in the context in which it was made. If, after having done so, it does not appear that the purpose of the remark was to obtain a confession from the accused, Miranda is not triggered and it is not necessary that the accused first be advised of his rights. Hopkins, 582 N.E.2d at 349 (quoting Johnson v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 370, 377, 380 N.E.2d 1236, 1240).