Court Opinion

ID: 9861009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:39:04.18728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:02.620605
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case and its holding that appellant’s confession made after entering into a plea agreement was inadmissible under the statute, Ind.Code § 35-35-3-4, which provides:
“A plea agreement, or a verbal or written communication concerning the plea agreement, may not be admitted into evidence at the trial of the case, should the plea agreement not culminate in approval by the court.”
Prior to entering into plea bargaining with the prosecutor, appellant had stated to police that he was willing to make a statement as long as he could make a “deal.” Following that statement, the prosecutor was contacted and in fact did make a plea agreement with appellant. However, appellant’s confession was not made as a part of that agreement. The State did not attempt to place any evidence before the court concerning the negotiations, as prohibited by the statute. Appellant’s confession was given after full rights warnings and was not a part of any of the discussion appellant had with the prosecuting attorney in reaching his plea agreement. I do not think the confession came under either the statute or the cases that have been decided under the statute.
The majority opinion also states that to allow the confession in evidence would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits a person being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal action. I believe the majority opinion to be in error in this regard. To follow such a line of reasoning would prohibit the use of any con*457fession made by a defendant in a criminal case regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. It is obvious that a confession is a statement of guilt made by the charged party. However, this has never been held to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The prohibition comes into force only when a defendant is tricked or forced into a confession or is forced to take the witness stand during his trial, neither of which are acceptable under the Constitution. The case at bar in no way approaches this type of situation.
The trial court should be affirmed.