Opinion ID: 854076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Advisement of Rights During Questioning

Text: The defendant was brought into the police station for questioning. He was advised, and signed a waiver, of his Miranda rights at the time the police started questioning. After some questioning, the police stopped the interrogation to investigate part of the defendant's story. When the questioning resumed less than an hour later, the police did not advise the defendant a second time of his Miranda rights. The defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements during the second questioning, which the trial court denied, and the defendant reasserted the same objection at trial. The defendant contends that his second statement should have been suppressed because he should have received a second warning. We disagree. In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant, we do not reweigh the evidence but only consider the conflicting evidence favorable to the trial court's ruling and any uncontroverted substantial evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the ruling. Buie v. State, 633 N.E.2d 250, 256 (Ind.1994). Here it is clear that police acted in accordance with the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 721 (1966), which requires law enforcement officials to give those in custodial interrogation an advisement of certain constitutional rights. Although it might be the better practice to reiterate such warnings after an interruption of questioning, see Grimes v. State, 454 N.E.2d 388, 391 (Ind. 1983), a readvisement is only necessary when the interruption deprived the suspect of an opportunity to make an informed and intelligent assessment of his interests. Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075, 1081-82 (Ind.1996); Shane v. State, 615 N.E.2d 425, 427 (Ind. 1993). If the interruption is part of a continual effort to investigate the suspect, then the suspect's interests remain fairly clear. Shane, 615 N.E.2d at 427. The undisputed evidence shows that the interruption in the interrogation was part of a continual effort by the police to gather information, id., and, thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statements made during the second interview.