Niki Kelly and Jeff Wiehe have an article on the Indiana Supreme Court’s new rule concerning the admissibility of evidence of custodial interrogations in felony cases. (At the moment, the Indiana Judiciary’s website is less than helpful. There is a press release, but then you have to go digging for the actual order promulgating the new rule of evidence.)
The Supreme Court’s press release says:
The rule, which was approved by majority vote, states in part, “In a felony criminal prosecution, evidence of a statement made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation in a Place of Detention shall not be admitted against the person unless an Electronic Recording of the statement was made.”
A place of detention means a jail, law enforcement agency station house, or facility owned and operated by law enforcement. An electronic recording means an audio-video recording. The exact definitions for “place of detention” and “electronic recording” can be found in Rule 617 online.
There are seven exceptions to the rule which can be found online as well. Generally, the exceptions include the following:
1. statements made as a part of routine processing or “booking”
2. statements made when the suspect does not agree to be electronically recorded.
3. when there is an equipment malfunction
4. when the interrogation takes place in another jurisdiction
5. when law enforcement officers reasonably believe the crime under investigation is not a felony
6. the statement made is spontaneous and not in response to a question
7. substantial exigent circumstances exist which prevent the recording
The Journal Gazette article has an interesting quote from Rep. Matt Pierce who chairs the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee. He called a grey area the issue of whether such a rule should have gone through the legislature or the courts.
“There has been tension between the legislature and the courts in the past about what the legislature can do in areas of evidence,” he said. “The court says the Constitution gives them the job of administering courts, so they are the final word.”
Justices Dixon, Boehm, and Rucker voted in favor of the new rule. Justices Shepard and Sullivan dissented, mostly on the grounds that police departments are largely moving in this direction on their own and there hasn’t been any particular evidence of dishonesty in the Indiana law enforcement community where such interrogations are not recorded.
Leave a Reply