Court Opinion

ID: 9535554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:50:48.828984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:16.953388
License: Public Domain

BUCHANAN, Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
While I concur with the majority's conclusion that Auten's and MeFall's convictions should be affirmed, I dissent from the majority's decision to reverse Winchester's conviction.
To conclude that Winchester invoked her right to remain silent one must necessarily reweigh the evidence. There is evidence both ways.
Officer Farthing testified:
"Q. Did she say that she just refused to sign or did she refuse to waive her rights?
A. Refused to sign.
Q. But she wanted to waive her rights?
Yes, but she would not sign the form. She would not sign any form. p>
And did she say why she didn't want to sign the form? $
Nope. She did not.
Did she ever indicate to you she wanted to talk with an attorney?
No. She did not. }>
Did she have any questions about what it meant if she signed the form? &
A. Nope. form." She didn't question the
Record at 429 (emphasis supplied).
Our supreme court has determined that the mere refusal to sign a waiver form does not, by itself, constitute an exercise of a defendant's right to remain silent. Norris v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1203. The only evidence the majority points to, to support its conclusion that Winchester invoked her right to remain silent, was her self-serving statement at trial that she refused to sign the waiver form because she assumed she would be giving up her rights. Record at 442. Thus, there was conflict in the evidence before the trial court.
The court in Norris, supra, was faced with a similar cireumstance when a defendant refused to sign a waiver form but nonetheless gave the police a statement. In observing that the mere refusal to sign did not constitute an exercise of the defendant's right to remain silent, the court observed "[this is especially true where the defendant, as Appellant here, volunteers a statement." Id. at 1204. If this were not so, custodial authorities are forced to gaze into a crystal ball to ascertain whether refusal to sign a waiver form constitutes exercise of a defendant's right to remain silent.
Here, as in Norris, Winchester merely refused, without explanation, to sign the form. She then gave a statement, which casts doubt upon whether she invoked her right to remain silent. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Winchester did not invoke her right to remain silent, we should affirm her conviction.