# Clark v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 2004 · 808 N.E.2d 1183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505340

## Case

- **Full name:** Derrick Daron CLARK, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 19, 2004
- **Citations:** 808 N.E.2d 1183; 2004 Ind. LEXIS 460; 2004 WL 1118722
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rucker
- **Judges:** Boehm, Rucker, Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505340

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the Supreme Court expressly noted in Green *74 that, “where the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create …
- stating that the Supreme Court expressly noted in Crawford that, "where the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a…
- holding that interrogating officer’s statements to defendant that “there’s a way you can work around this” and that defendant would have no future unless he was honest about what had happened did not constitute a promise or threat that rendered defendant’s confession involuntary
- stating that the United States Supreme Court "specifically noted that its holding does not alter the rule that 'when the declarant appears *966 for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements'"
- holding that an officer’s statements that “there’s a way you can work around this” and that the defendant would not have a future unless he was honest were not promises of benefits, threats, or inducements and did not render the confession involuntary

## Opinion text

RUCKER, J.,
concurs except for the majority's resolution concerning the sentence. Rather than remand this cause for a second time to cure an inadequate sentencing order, he would impose the maximum terms of 65 years for the murder conviction. He would further order the sentence to be served consecutive to the sentences the trial court has already imposed for attempted murder and carrying a handgun without a license.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505340. Public record. Not legal advice.