ILNews

Miranda warning given during police interview makes confession admissible

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant’s confession made during a police interrogation is admissible because while officers questioned the defendant in what they called a “pre-interview,” they Mirandized him before he confessed.

The defendant, Robert Hicks, appealed his conviction of murder and 55-year sentence for the death of girlfriend Anna Jochum. He claimed the admission he made of striking and then stabbing Jochum should have been suppressed, in part, because the police engaged in a “question-first, Mirandize-later” approach to his interrogation.

Hicks pointed to Missouri V. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) where the Supreme Court of the United States threw out statements police obtained by using an interrogation technique where they  purposefully withheld Miranda warnings until after the suspect had confessed. Then they Mirandized the defendant and got a second, similar admission of guilt.

Although Indiana courts have applied Seibert to situations in which a Miranda advisement was given after a defendant confessed, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that is not what happened to Hicks.

He agreed to accompany officers to the police station and answer their questions. When he admitted to having been in an argument with Jochum, officers read Hicks his Miranda rights. He then provided more details about the argument and his actions. In an interview the next day, before which he was again Mirandized, he talked more.

The Court of Appeals held Siebert did not apply because Hicks confessed after being read his Miranda rights. It affirmed his conviction and sentence in Robert E. Hicks v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1306-CR-256.

 
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT