ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
PATRICIA CARESS MCMATH KAREN M. FREEMAN-WILSON
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ARTHUR THADDEUS PERRY
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
QUAN TURNER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
) Supreme Court Cause Number
v. ) 49S00-0001-CR-37
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION, ROOM THREE
The Honorable Cale J. Bradford, Judge
Cause No. 49G03-9812-CF-204921
ON DIRECT APPEAL
November 16, 2000
RUCKER, Justice
In this direct appeal Quan Turner contends that his convictions for
murder and carrying a handgun without a license should be reversed because
his confession was involuntary and thus erroneously admitted into evidence.
We disagree and therefore affirm.
Facts
The facts most favorable to the verdict show that Turner, Jason
McGhee, and others were drinking at several Indianapolis clubs late in the
evening on December 26, 1998. The group returned to McGhee’s residence
early the next morning. Eventually, most members of the group left.
However, Turner stayed behind to confront McGhee about a rumor that McGhee
had planned to harm him. Several hours later McGhee was found dead from a
gunshot wound to the head.
Detective Jesse Beavers of the Indianapolis Police Department was
assigned to investigate the McGhee shooting. Relying on a tip, which
indicated that Turner might have been involved, the detective went to the
home of Turner’s sister. Detective Beavers found Turner asleep on a couch.
After he was awakened, Turner was arrested and transported to the police
station. Upon arrival, detective Beavers read Turner his Miranda rights to
which Turner signed a written waiver. Among other things the waiver
dictated: “No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or
coercion of any kind has been used against me.” R. at 201. Turner then
gave a statement that was recorded on audio tape in which Turner admitted
that he and McGhee “got into an argument and I shot him. I panicked and
ran out of the house.” R. at 369. Thereafter, Turner was charged with
murder and carrying a handgun without a license. He filed a pre-trial
motion to suppress his statement, which the
trial court denied after a hearing. At trial the statement was introduced
into evidence over Turner’s timely objection. The jury convicted Turner as
charged, and the court sentenced him to a total term of sixty-six years
imprisonment. This appeal followed. Additional facts are set forth below
where relevant.
Discussion
Turner contends the trial court erred by admitting his taped
confession into evidence. He claims that his confession was involuntary
because it was the product of intrusive and coercive actions by the police.
Turner does not contest the evidence of record showing that he was given
his Miranda rights and that he signed a written waiver. Rather, he
complains of alleged police conduct occurring before those events.
Specifically, Turner claims: (1) police had their guns drawn when they
arrested him; and (2) after the arrest, police yelled at him, called him a
liar, and threatened to arrest his mother, sister, and brother if he did
not tell police what they wanted to hear.
When a defendant challenges the admissibility of his statement, the
State must prove the voluntariness of the statement beyond a reasonable
doubt. Carter v. State, 730 N.E.2d 155, 157 (Ind. 2000); Schmitt v. State,
730 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. 2000). When a defendant makes such a challenge,
the decision to admit the statement is left to the sound discretion of the
trial court. Horan v. State, 682 N.E.2d 502, 509 (Ind. 1997). In making
its determination, the trial court weighs the evidence to ensure that a
confession was not obtained “through inducement, violence, threats or other
improper influences so as to overcome the free will of the accused.” Ellis
v. State, 707 N.E.2d 797, 801 (Ind. 1999)
(quoting Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind. 1987)). A trial
court’s finding of voluntariness will be upheld if the record discloses
substantial evidence of probative value that supports the trial court’s
decision. Kahlenbeck v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (Ind. 1999). This
Court will not reweigh the evidence, and conflicting evidence is viewed
most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Haak v. State, 695 N.E.2d 944,
948 (Ind. 1998).
Concerning Turner’s first claim, we have held that the presence of
guns at the scene of an arrest is not evidence of coercion, but merely
cautious police procedure. Bluitt v. State, 269 Ind. 438, 447, 381 N.E.2d
458, 464 (1978). As for his second claim, Detective Beavers denied raising
his voice to Turner or calling him a liar. R. at 237-38. He also denied
mentioning Turner’s brother. R. at 237. Detective Beavers was not
questioned about alleged statements concerning any other member of Turner’s
family.
Even though Turner’s testimony and the testimony of his sister and
mother supported Turner’s claim that his family was threatened, the trial
court was not bound to credit Turner’s testimony or the testimony of his
family members. See Warner v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1307, 1310 (Ind. 1991).
In any event, the critical inquiry here is whether the alleged police
conduct overbore Turner’s will, thus rendering his statement involuntary.
Lynch v. State, 632 N.E.2d 341, 343 (Ind. 1994). The fact that Turner
signed a waiver of rights weighs in favor of the conclusion that his
statement was indeed voluntary. See Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075,
1081 (Ind. 1996) (signing a waiver of rights form provides some indication
that a defendant’s confession was made voluntarily). We also find
persuasive that both in the written waiver and audio-taped interview Turner
acknowledged that he was neither threatened nor
coerced into giving a statement. Turner’s contrary claim on appeal amounts
to an invitation for this Court to reweigh the evidence. We decline.
Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Turner’s
statement into evidence.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.