Opinion ID: 2061735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tape Recorded Statements

Text: Defendant challenges the admissibility of the pre-trial recorded statements to police investigators based on the contention that the statements were taken in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3. The undisputed facts relevant to this issue were contained in the trial judge's memorandum, which provided in part: Sandra and Wayne Whipple were found dead early on January 2, 1985. On that date, county police officers briefly interviewed the Whipples' children, Penny and Dale. When the officers asked Dale who should be contacted to take Penny and Dale home, Dale expressed concern for his grandparents, and an aunt was called. Following further investigation, the officers requested interviews with Penny and Dale at the police station. The Whipple children arrived with their aunt and uncle, Pamela and Joseph Geirnaert, with whom the Whipple children had been living, and the children's grandparents, Ralph and Medrith Snyder. Mr. Snyder had been busy during the days that followed the deaths of his daughter and son-in-law. He had dealt with the funerals and the estates, of which he was co-administrator. Mrs. Snyder was quite distraught. Mr. Snyder testified that Dale would never speak unless forced to, and would never resist instructions from an adult. The police officers first interviewed Penny. Mr. Snyder was present during the interview, and Penny was given an opportunity to consult privately with Mr. Snyder before the questioning began. After her interrogation was completed, Penny was sent to the lobby of the police station and Dale was summoned. Dale, Penny's older brother, was approximately six weeks short of his eighteenth birthday. Pamela Geirnaert, Dale's aunt, and Mr. Snyder, Dale's grandfather, were present. The police officers advised Dale, Mrs. Geirnaert and Mr. Snyder of the rights to remain silent, to the advice of counsel, to stop questioning at any time and to have counsel appointed. Mr. Snyder signed the waiver of rights as Dale's guardian and Dale signed the waiver of rights as the juvenile; Mrs. Geirnaert witnessed both signatures. Mr. Snyder had indicated to the police officers that he had an appointment that day with an attorney with reference to establishing a guardianship over Penny and Dale. At 10:40, before the questioning began, the officers left the room to allow Dale an opportunity to consult with his grandfather. Mr. Snyder testified that during that consultation, he told Dale to tell the truth, that if Dale withheld anything he could get the death penalty or life imprisonment, and that if he cooperated, with psychiatric help Dale could get as little as five years. Mr. Snyder's advice concerning Dale's criminal exposure was based upon his own belief, rather than any statements by police. The officers returned to the room when advised the consultation was over. Neither Dale nor his family members indicated any question about their rights. The officers then questioned Dale, who denied any involvement in his parents' deaths, despite the officers' telling him that they believed he had killed his parents and that his denials were lies. The police officers conferred after the two-hour interrogation of Dale, and, due to some discrepancies between Penny's story and Dale's story, decided to re-interview the Whipple children. Penny was called back to the interview room first. Mrs. Geirnaert and Mr. Snyder were again present. As he did for each of the interviews, Mr. Snyder signed the warning and waiver form as guardian. Mrs. Geirnaert signed as a witness. Penny was then re-interviewed and disclosed matters that she had not disclosed in her morning interview. Penny then left the interview room with Mrs. Geirnaert, and Dale was recalled to the interview room. He and Mr. Snyder were again informed of their rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. The officers again left the room to allow Dale and Mr. Snyder to speak privately. Mr. Snyder told Dale of the discrepancies between Dale's morning statement and Penny's morning statement, and of the additional matters Penny had disclosed in her afternoon statement. He told Dale that Dale was in even more trouble because of Dale's first statement. He said that Dale could get the electric chair unless he confesssed [sic]. He told Dale that the family all loved Dale and wanted him to get psychiatric help. He said the family had been through enough. The police officers re-entered the room when summoned. Dale and his grandfather were again informed of their rights to counsel and against self-incrimination; Mr. Snyder again signed as guardian and Dale again signed as juvenile on the warning and waiver form. Dale gave his second statement. Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3 provides in relevant part: (a) Any rights guaranteed to the child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only: (1) by counsel retained or appointed to represent the child, if the child knowingly and voluntarily joins with the waiver; or (2) by the child's custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if: (A) That person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right; (B) That person has no interest adverse to the child; (C) Meaningful consultation has occurred between that person and the child; and (D) The child knowingly and voluntarily joins with the waiver. (b) The child may waive his right to meaningful consultation under subdivision (a)(2)(C) if he is informed of that right, if his waiver is made in the presence of his custodial parent, guardian, custodian, guardian ad litem, or attorney, and if the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily. Defendant contends: 1) Mr. Snyder did not qualify as a consulting adult under Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3(a)(2); 2) Snyder did not knowingly and voluntarily waive defendant's rights; 3) Snyder had interests adverse to defendant; 4) no meaningful consultation occurred between Snyder and defendant prior to the waiver; and 5) defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily join in the waiver of his rights. Defendant argues that Snyder, defendant's grandfather, was not a qualified adult under Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3(a)(2) because he was not a guardian, custodian or guardian ad litem as those terms are defined in Ind. Code § 31-6-1-2. [1] Although we are mindful that strict compliance with Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3 is necessary to safeguard the rights of juveniles, Deckard v. State (1981), Ind. App., 425 N.E.2d 256, we have previously interpreted guardian to include de facto guardians acting in loco parentis. See, e.g., Hall v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 448, 346 N.E.2d 584 (sister acting in loco parentis ); Burnett v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 618, 377 N.E.2d 1340 (sister); Andrews v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 194 (grandmother). This interpretation is sensible and complies with the spirit of the law and promotes the purpose of afford[ing] the juvenile defendant a stabilizing and relaxed atmosphere in which to make a serious decision that could possibly affect the rest of his life. Andrews v. State, 441 N.E.2d at 198. We find no error here. The record clearly indicates Snyder was advised of defendant's Miranda rights, understood them, and voluntarily waived them. A written waiver of rights form was duly executed by Snyder and witnessed by defendant's aunt and the two interviewing police investigators prior to each of defendant's January 7, 1985, interviews. In addition, Snyder verbally acknowledged his understanding of the rights and the waiver of the rights at the beginning of each interview. In short, the record does not support defendant's contention of error on this point. Defendant contends Snyder had precisely the division of loyalties that the juvenile waiver statute is designed to avoid. Appellant's Reply Brief, p. 27. He supports this contention by pointing to Snyder's personal interest in discovering the truth surrounding the killing of his daughter and son-in-law, and suggests this conflicted with defendant's best interests. In addition, Snyder was acting as guardian for defendant's sister, whose interests were different than defendant's. Finally, defendant points to Snyder's financial interest in the victims' estates as adverse to defendant's under Ind. Code § 29-1-2-12.1. As defendant points out, the record reveals that at all times relevant to this issue, Snyder was distraught over the killings and was burdened with making funeral arrangements and assisting in the representation of the victims' estates. However, we are unpersuaded that these factors undermined his capacity to safeguard defendant's best interests prior to and during the police interviews. As for Snyder's interest in discovering the truth, we considered a similar issue in Buchanan v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 503, 376 N.E.2d 1131, and held that because a consulting father was not acting in concert with the police, his advice to the defendant to waive his right to remain silent and to tell the truth did not render the waiver involuntary. Cf. Borum v. State (1982), Ind. App., 434 N.E.2d 581 (waiver invalid because child's guardian, a public welfare counselor, filed the petition initiating the proceeding and was also an employee of the state agency which assumed the role of an adverse party). Snyder was not acting as an agent for the police or prosecutor when he encouraged defendant to waive his rights and tell the truth. Snyder expressed his love and concern for defendant and his belief that if defendant told the whole story, he would be in a better position to receive psychiatric help and a more favorable sentence. We are unable to view his position as adverse as contemplated by the statute. We also agree with the trial judge's conclusion that Snyder's attempt to act as guardian for both defendant and his sister did not put Snyder into a position where his interest was adverse to defendant's. With respect to the fact that Snyder's pecuniary interest in the victim's estate was adverse to defendant's pecuniary interest, we decline to view this as having any significant impact on Snyder's concern for defendant's best interests. Ind. Code § 29-1-2-12.1 provides in part that defendant would be precluded from taking any property under his parents' wills or by intestate succession were he found guilty or guilty but mentally ill of the murders. Rather, defendant would hold the property as a constructive trustee for those individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the property. Thus, it appears every member of defendant's family had an interest similar to Snyder's. We agree with the observation of the trial judge: [2] It would be preposterous to require investigating agencies to await the probating of the estate of a homicide victim before questioning a juvenile related to the victim. The problem could be avoided by appointment of a guardian ad litem or an attorney in all cases in which a juvenile is suspected of killing a relative. Such a solution would, however, disregard the purpose of the Lewis [ v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 431, 288 N.E.2d 138] rule requiring the presence of a parent or guardian. That rule was intended to attempt to equalize the pressures borne by juveniles and adults during custodial interrogation by providing a `familiar and friendly influence' at the time of the questioning. Providing a disinterested stranger would not achieve this goal. There is no question that police investigators provided sufficient opportunity for defendant and Snyder to consult in private prior to both the first and second interviews. Snyder testified in the pre-trial suppression hearing that defendant said nothing in the periods set aside for these consultations, thus we would be unable to conclude any meaningful dialogue occurred. However, as observed in Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 769, 772: The meaningful consultation requirement consequently may be satisfied by either actual consultation of a meaningful nature or by the express opportunity for such consultation, which is then forsaken in the presence of the proper authority by the juvenile, so long as the juvenile knowingly and voluntarily waives his constitutional rights. Defendant implicitly renounced his right to engage in any dialogue or to participate in any meaningful consultation. The police had no control over defendant's use of the opportunity to consult, and they were in no position to dictate or even recommend how defendant and Snyder spend their time. Buchanan v. State, supra . Ind. Code § 31-6-7-3(d) provides: In determining whether any waiver of rights during custodial interrogation was made knowingly and voluntarily, the juvenile court shall consider all the circumstances of the waiver, including: (1) The child's physical, mental, and emotional maturity; (2) Whether the child or his parent, guardian, custodian, or attorney understood the consequences of his statements; (3) Whether the child and his parent, guardian, or custodian had been informed of the delinquent act with which the child was charged or of which he was suspected; (4) The length of time he was held in custody before consulting with his parent, guardian, or custodian; (5) Whether there was any coercion, force, or inducement; and (6) Whether the child and his parent, guardian, or custodian had been advised of the child's right to remain silent and to the appointment of counsel. Defendant was six weeks shy of his eighteenth birthday and in good physical health. There is no question whether defendant and Snyder were advised of defendant's rights, and there is no contention that they did not understand. Defendant had not been held in custody prior to the opportunity to consult with Snyder in private. Defendant and Snyder were both aware of the acts of which defendant was suspected. Snyder urged defendant to waive his right to remain silent and tell the truth; however, we are unpersuaded that Snyder's influence upon defendant detracted from the voluntariness of defendant's waiver. When defendant firmly denied his participation in the crime during the first interview, the police investigators accused defendant of the killings and attempted to coax and persuade defendant to tell the whole story, but to no avail. The police also told defendant that if he was involved, he would receive the proper help. We do not conclude, however, that these tactics constituted undue coercion or improper inducement to stimulate defendant's waiver or subsequent confession. The transcripts of the interviews are devoid of any threats of force by police. Defendant was well aware he was the prime suspect in the case. The accusations during the course of the first interview were not made in such a manner so as to coerce an involuntary waiver or confession. Nor were the attempts to persuade defendant to tell the truth an improper inducement to render the subsequent confession involuntary. See, e.g., Drew v. State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 613, 615, and cases cited therein. Moreover, the statement that defendant would receive the proper help was insufficient to render the confession inadmissible. Smith v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 190, 193 (An officer's statement to the accused during the interrogation that he will get mental health assistance for the accused does not constitute a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment... .). Accord Fennell v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 297. Defendant attempts to distinguish cases such as those cited above and advocates a dual standard by suggesting in the case of juveniles, any type of inducing tactic, no matter how minimal, undermines the voluntariness of the confession. We disagree. The paramount question regarding admissibility is controlled by determining from the totality of circumstances whether or not the confession was given voluntarily and not through inducement, violence, threats or other improper influences so as to overcome the free will of the accused. Massey v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 146, 147. Any custodial interrogation may be viewed as a coercive or threatening method designed to induce a confession. Our analysis requires that we look to the degree of the alleged inducement on a case-by-case basis and consider defendant's age as but a single factor in the totality of the circumstances. Our review here leads us to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's waiver and confession were made knowingly and voluntarily.