Robert E. Hicks v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 97
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Victim Anna Jochum was found dead in her apartment on July 12, 2012 with blunt-force neck injuries causing spinal laceration and over fifty stab wounds; Hicks, her live‑in boyfriend, was missing.
- Police located Hicks at a Kentucky homeless shelter on July 13; he agreed to speak with Evansville officers and went to the Henderson police station voluntarily.
- Officers conducted an unrecorded "pre‑interview" (no Miranda warnings) in which Hicks discussed an argument and said he left; the court later suppressed statements from this pre‑interview.
- The next day, after receiving autopsy results showing stab wounds, officers advised Hicks of Miranda rights, obtained a written waiver, and recorded two interviews in which Hicks admitted striking and stabbing Jochum.
- Hicks was charged with murder, moved to suppress the recorded confessions (claiming a request for counsel and Seibert-style coercion), was convicted by jury, and sentenced to 55 years; he appealed the admission of the recorded statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hicks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hicks unequivocally requested counsel before recorded interrogations | No — the officers testified no clear request was made; trial court could disbelieve Hicks | Hicks said "I think I should talk to an attorney," which he contends was a request requiring cessation of interrogation | Court held Hicks’s testimony was not credited; statement was not an unequivocal request for counsel, so no automatic suppression |
| Whether Hicks was in custody such that Miranda warnings were required during the pre‑interview | Pre‑interview was noncustodial or, even if custodial, later warnings cured defect | Hicks contends he was effectively in custody from arrival at station and initial questioning therefore required Miranda earlier | Court assumed arguendo custody for pre‑interview, suppressed those statements, but found later recorded waivers valid |
| Whether police used unlawful "question‑first, Mirandize‑later" tactic (Missouri v. Seibert) | State: officers did not obtain an incriminating confession pre‑Miranda and then elicit it again post‑Miranda; the recorded confessions followed a knowing waiver after new information | Hicks: initial un‑Mirandized questioning induced admissions and later warnings were used to obtain repeated confession (Seibert violation) | Court held Seibert inapplicable because Hicks did not confess before Miranda; post‑Miranda confessions admissible |
| Whether trial court abused discretion admitting the two recorded post‑Miranda statements | Admission proper because warnings and written waivers were obtained and confessions were voluntary | Admission improper due to earlier custodial context and alleged request for counsel | Court affirmed admission of the recorded statements and Hicks’s conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (condemning the deliberate practice of obtaining a confession pre‑Miranda then repeating it post‑Miranda)
- Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013) (Seibert applied where post‑Miranda statements repeated pre‑Miranda confession)
- Luna v. State, 788 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. 2003) (custody test: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Maxwell v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing Seibert where no pre‑Miranda confession was made)
- Fuqua v. State, 984 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary admissibility)
- King v. State, 844 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. Ct. App.) (statements made during custodial interrogation before Miranda must be suppressed)