# Brown v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · June 22, 1971 · 256 Ind. 558

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9861681

## Case

- **Full name:** Fred Brown v. State of Indiana
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 22, 1971
- **Citations:** 256 Ind. 558; 270 N.E.2d 751; 1971 Ind. LEXIS 677
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Arterburn
- **Judges:** Debruler, Givan, Hunter, Prentice, Arterburn
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9861681

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion
Arterburn, C.J.
I dissent for the reason that the majority opinion appears to leave the inference that a waiver by a *566 prisoner of the constitutional right not to be compelled to incriminate himself must be executed in writing. In my opinion that is not the law. Likewise, a refusal to sign a waiver of such constitutional right does not mean a prisoner may not change his mind thereafter and agree to talk. In my opinion that is the very question here. This prisoner was fully and adequately informed of his constitutional right to talk or not to talk as well as the right to consult with an attorney before talking. We have said a number of times that a person in custody may waive the right to have an attorney before talking and that he may talk any time he pleases. This prisoner was fully informed of his rights and chose to talk. There is no evidence that he was forced to talk or was coerced into doing so.
The majority opinion appears to take the position that once a refusal to talk is made it is practically impossible for the prisoner to waive his rights or change his mind. With this I cannot agree. In most cases these prisoners are as smart and know as much about their constitutional rights as the law enforcement officer who attempts to inform them of the same. Here the trial court heard the evidence as to admissibility and we have no right to substitute our finding for its finding on the facts.
Note. — Reported in 270 N. E. 2d 751 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9861681. Public record. Not legal advice.