ILNews

Father’s confession shouldn’t have been admitted at trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a father’s conviction of child molesting related to his daughter, finding his confession, which was admitted into evidence at trial, was obtained in violation of Miranda protocol.

Detectives from Carroll and White counties went to Ryan Bean’s Lafayette home to speak with him about molestation allegations made by his daughter, H.B., and his niece, M.S. But police told Bean that they wanted to speak with him about an investigation into possession of child pornography. Bean agreed to go to the Lafayette Police station to speak about the child pornography allegations and “something else.” He was not arrested at this time.

He was at the station for more than an hour when police switched their interrogation from the pornography investigation to the claims made by his daughter and niece. Bean had already signed his Miranda rights waiver and was informed he could leave the building if he wanted. Several times, Bean asked about needing a lawyer, and he said he wanted to have a lawyer. The detectives did not stop questioning and eventually Bean confessed to molesting the girls.

He was charged in Carroll County with three counts of Class A felony child molesting of H.B. He was charged in White County with one count of Class A felony child molesting of H.B. The trials involving M.B. are not at issue on appeal. Bean tried to suppress his confession, which was denied. He was convicted in Carroll County of just one count, and convicted in White County on the count charged.

The Court of Appeals found itself in agreement with the 7th, 10th and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in that although the giving of Miranda warnings should not automatically render a suspect in custody, neither should the giving of such warnings be irrelevant in deciding whether one was in custody.

The judges concluded that Bean was in custody when he finally confessed, even if he was not formally arrested at the time, and even if he had been technically told he was free to leave the station at any time and not speak with police, Judge Michael Barnes wrote in Ryan E. Bean v. State of Indiana, 91A02-1109-CR-906.

Bean was taken to the station by police, the officers who spoke to him at his house didn’t tell Bean the real reason they wanted to speak with him, and the questioning in this case was aggressive and lengthy. The crucial factor indicating Bean was in custody was that he had been advised of his right to remain silent and have an attorney, he invoked those rights, and police continued questioning him anyway.

The appellate court rejected the state’s claims that Bean did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel or that the trial court admittance of the confession was a harmless error. The judges reversed Bean’s convictions in both counties. The state may retrial Bean if it so chooses.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Life time of Pain
    Because of the stupidity of the police station, a young girl is never going to get the justice she deserves. How do they think she is going to go on in life know that some one could get away with hurting her. And since he was acquitted the stupid law is probly not going to keep him away from her, only for her to endure more abuse.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

    3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

    4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

    5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

    ADVERTISEMENT