Court Opinion

ID: 9543125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:22.105326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:43.517943
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that Currie's interrogation by Detective Wasaluski was in violation of his Miranda rights in that the interrogation proceeded after Currie had invoked his right to counsel. Wilson v. Murray (4th Cir.1986), 806 F.2d 1232. However, I do not agree with the conclusion that such error was not harmless error.
In Sleek v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 751, our supreme court, citing Malott v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 879, said that Miranda violations are subject to harmless error analysis. The facts in this case persuade me that the Miranda violation here was harmless.
Upon arrival at the scene, the police and owner of the premises discovered a panel of an overhead door had been broken out. Inspection of the premises revealed a hole in the ceiling tile in the office as if someone had fallen through. Desk drawers had been ransacked, and a calculator had been disconnected and moved from its normal position. Upon further search of the building, Currie was found hiding behind some coveralls in a restroom. He was uncooperative, refused to place his hands on a locker as instructed, and resisted the officers.
A conviction for burglary requires proof that a person broke into and entered the building of another with intent to commit a felony therein. Indiana Code section 85-48-21-1; Hossman v. State (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 1150, trans. denied. Conviction for burglary does not require proof of theft but only proof of an intent to commit the felony. Bush v. State (1980), Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 796, trans, denied. In Bush, although nothing was taken from the building broken into, the office appeared ransacked. We held this evidence sufficient to support a finding of intent to commit theft, especially when coupled with evidence of flight. Bush, at 801.
Evidence of the manner in which the building was broken into and the ransack ing of the desk and moving the calculator support the conclusion that the intruder intended to commit the felony of theft. Meadows v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1232. This is particularly true here when coupled with evidence of Currie's hiding behind the coveralls in the restroom and his resisting the officers. Busk.
The breaking and entering clearly were established-a panel of the overhead door was broken out and Currie was found inside the building. Intent to commit theft likewise was established sufficiently. Meadows; Bush.
In determining whether or not the evidence admitted in violation of Miranda was harmless, appellate tribunals must *885weigh both the inadmissible evidence and the properly admitted evidence supporting guilt to determine whether the properly admitted evidence, as compared with the tainted evidence, is overwhelming. Mulry v. State (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 413, trans. denied. Because Mulry could not be linked to the offense absent his tainted admission his conviction was reversed. Here, however, there is ample evidence apart from Currie's statement to establish his guilt. This case also is distinguishable from Owen v. State (1986), Ind.App., 490 N.E.2d 1130, trans. denied, where we held the Miranda violation was not harmless in view of the defendant's denial of guilt and his attempt to explain his conduct. Here, unlike Owen, the credibility of Currie is not in issue. Thus, in my view, the determination of guilt was not affected by the Miranda violation in view of the clear and overwhelming character of the properly admissible evidence of guilt. Our supreme court has held that admission into evidence of statements made by a defendant in an interrogation in violation of Miranda, is not reversible error where such evidence is not decisive of guilt but is merely cumulative. Works v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 250, 362 N.E.2d 144. That is precisely the situation in this case.
For the reasons hereinbefore stated, I am compelled to conclude the Miranda violation in this case was harmless error. Therefore, I dissent.