Opinion ID: 852272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Out of Court Statement

Text: Treadway contends the trial court erred by admitting into evidence his out of court statement given to police officers in the State of Minnesota. According to Treadway the statement was not given knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. The record shows that around 4:30 p.m. on October 23, 2005, Treadway, driving a stolen van, led officers of the Fairmont Minnesota Police Department on a high speed chase. The police were investigating a report of a burglary in the area, and the chase came to an end when they used stop sticks to immobilize the van. An apparently intoxicated Treadway was arrested and approximately two hours later was given a breathalyzer test that measured.23 BAC. Treadway was eventually transported to the Martin County Jail. [8] Beginning at about 10:30 p.m. that same evening he was questioned by Detective Corey Klanderud who was later joined by Officer Bryan Boltjes. Before questioning began, which was both audio recorded and videotaped, Detective Klanderud read to Treadway a written Miranda advisement. [9] When asked if he understood the advisement, Treadway responded by nodding his head yes. Tr. at 126. When asked if he still wanted to talk to the Detective, [Treadway] responded all right. Tr. at 127. According to Detective Klanderud, during the course of the ensuing conversation it was his opinion that Treadway understood the questions being asked, his answers were understandable, and although aware that Treadway had been drinking earlier that day, he did not notice any indication of slurred speech or anything of that nature. Tr. at 129. Investigating a burglary in Minnesota, the officers were unaware that Treadway was a suspect in an Indiana homicide investigation. However, during the course of questioning Treadway made several statements that made the officers suspicious. At various times for example, Treadway responded to questions with remarks such as, [s]o... I don't sit here and tell you about stuff that I've done and what's going on and what's happening and what's going to happen, Ex. Tr. at 331; [y]ou are going to see that all here pretty soon man, Ex. Tr. at 332; [b]ut I'm not one to sit here and tell you all about it, you are going to find out here in just a little while. Id.; You don't know how worse it is going to get for me, Ex. Tr. at 330; [w]ell ah ... Indianapolis probably will want to see me, Ex. Tr. at 344; I'm pretty sure Indiana wants to talk to me, Ex. Tr. at 346; and I'm going for life man ... No, I'm going for life, Ex. Tr. at 127. Treadway gave no details about that to which he was referring. During the course of questioning Treadway also asked to use the bathroom, which was initially denied. At a hearing on a motion to suppress the statement, Treadway argued for exclusion on grounds that it was obtained without proper (a) Miranda and (b) without voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights. Tr. at 89. Counsel for Treadway elaborated, He was intoxicated at the time. There had been a long period of time that he had went without sleep as well as there was a period of time that we believe he could have been under somewhat of duress because of having been in a police chase hours before. He had no shoes, he had not been allowed to go to the restroom. Tr. at 90. After hearing evidence including reviewing the audiotape and the video recording the trial court denied the motion to suppress. In doing so the trial court expressed concerns about evidence that Treadway was under the influence of alcohol and the denial of Treadway's request to use the bathroom. At trial, outside the presence of the jury, a discussion ensued over the admissibility of State's Exhibit 105 and 106 (audiotape and video recording of Treadway's statement) and State's Exhibit 107 (a substantially redacted transcript of State's Exhibit 105). Responding to Treadway's argument the trial court replied, Show that the defense is again moving to suppress 105, 106, and 107 for reasons stated in the prior hearings on the motions to suppress the statement taken by Detective Klanderud. Tr. at 1675. Treadway also moved to further redact certain portions of Exhibit 107 that contained statements made by Officer Boltjes. The trial court overruled the objection and again denied the motion to suppress. When the State moved to introduce the exhibits at trial, noting over objections heretofore made, Tr. at 1690, the trial court admitted the exhibits into evidence. [10] In this appeal, Treadway no longer challenges the propriety of the Miranda advisement given by Detective Klanderud. Instead asserting the trial court found Mr. Treadway was intoxicated, tired and denied the use of a restroom, Br. of Appellant at 31, Treadway contends his statement should have been suppressed. We first observe Treadway employs a fair amount of editorial license in characterizing what the trial court allegedly found. The record shows that at the motion to suppress hearing, the trial court expressed its concerns with the following observations: there are two things about that statement I don't like.... I'm not saying that they're over any lines but I don't like them. One is, there was good reason for the law enforcement authorities to think he was intoxicated.... And the second is [`]you can go to the bathroom after we're done talking.['] I just don't like that. Tr. at 228-29. The trial court went on to add, [defense counsel] mentioned a number of other issues, he was sleepy, he was  he was stressed from the chase, the auto chase. I don't find those troublesome. Tr. at 229. The record makes clear there were no trial court findings as such. In any event several standards govern our review. First, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights, and that the defendant's statement was voluntarily given. Ringo v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1209, 1211 (Ind.2000). Second, once this standard is met, it is not error to admit the statement. Third, when reviewing a challenge to the trial court's decision to admit the defendant's statement, we do not reweigh the evidence but instead examine the record for substantial probative evidence of voluntariness. Carter v. State, 730 N.E.2d 155, 157 (Ind.2000). The first question that must be addressed is whether Treadway waived his Miranda rights. A waiver of Miranda rights occurs when the defendant, after being advised of those rights and acknowledging that he understands them, proceeds to make a statement without taking advantage of those rights. Ringo, 736 N.E.2d at 1211-12. The admissibility of a statement is controlled by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether it was made voluntarily and not induced by violence, threats, or other improper influences that overcame the defendant's free will. Id. at 1212. As recounted above, the evidence at the suppression hearing supports a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Treadway was fully advised of his rights and voluntarily waived them. The State showed that the appropriate Miranda rights were read to Treadway, he acknowledged understanding those rights, and proceeded to talk to the police. The State carried its burden to demonstrate waiver. Treadway insists however that his statement was nonetheless involuntary because he was tired and intoxicated at the time of the police questioning. It is true that intoxication and lack of sleep may be factors in determining voluntariness. Ringo, 736 N.E.2d at 1213. But these factors are not sufficient of themselves. Instead they are included in the totality of the circumstances that a trial court considers in ruling on whether to admit a statement. Brewer v. State, 646 N.E.2d 1382, 1385 (Ind.1995). The record shows that at the time Treadway gave his statement he was cogent and lucid. Also, he had not consumed any drugs or alcohol for at least six hours. There was no evidence of threats, violence, promises, or use of improper influences. We therefore conclude the trial court did not err in allowing the statement into evidence. In a related argument Treadway contends the trial court also erred in not further redacting portions of the transcribed statement that included questions asked by Officer Boltjes. According to Treadway the officer's statements amount to hearsay and therefore should have been excluded. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ind. Evidence R. 801(c). And hearsay is generally inadmissible. Ind. Evidence Rule 802. However the statements about which Treadway complains were not offered for their truthfulness and thus are not hearsay. [11] Instead the statements were obviously made in order to obtain a response from Treadway. The trial court properly overruled the objection.