Court Opinion

ID: 9860008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:06:42.712276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:12:56.764932
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Givan, C.J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I do not think the representations made by the police officers in this case, as outlined in the majority opinion, rise to the stature of a promise, direct or implied, as discussed by the United States Supreme Court cases cited by the majority.
The police officers had told the appellants they would be given an executed ten-year sentence if they entered a plea of guilty to armed robbery. This representation was made by the police officers after consultation with the prosecuting attorney. There is nothing in the record to indicate that there was anything false or misleading in such a promise. The fact of the matter remains that appellants, for whatever reason known to them, chose not to enter a guilty plea, but chose to stand trial by jury. I do not perceive that there was any trickery, misrepresentation or denial of due process by reason of the action of the police officers. I do not think the United States Supreme Court cases cited by the majority are pertinent to the issues in this case.
In the cases of Anderson v. State, (1933) 205 Ind. 607, 186 N.E. 316 and Matthews v. State, (1959) 239 Ind. 252, 156 N.E.2d 387, this Court has held that mere statements by *325police officers as to the amount of sentence an accused would receive do not render his confession inadmissible. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in this case.
Note. — Reported at 354 N.E.2d 192.