ÿWPC™  <"ÀxãEÚ¡Œï]ÍxÂiLP¥Ž_yñg‡ßí@ˆÙQØþlYSðÕá§R7²íÊSŽÃê.ƒÊaQEñŸ*>¤uÉã¯üÚ¹ÄNá¸Ü߀$ÑS%%‰m c›¡äìm¢œ/š³^“Í',)P—E»WÑ®G}`¡4*Ú4¥€Næ<™<,ɯÎ1C·#“ÞClly@¡º|¼g¿oç{­tô–h3‡ùÜ’pöu.‹Éˆ%dÝtíQµ2dl‹xáæ}O‹D¥ ñ“öq0^ËíÀŒ Vº4ÚöAñ1ÑO§b[…¶™Áš¯¥äólÌÌg+8Û›Ðé¢'PµJÌo=ªzˆ[iJsèØ‚³YÈÐÏ÷À m,0ŠÙfàØb$@Å)‘˜Ùcæ;¢é%½"=¸š$Ž°Œ"EŸª‡.™ÖÀzä!gvÐÓAÛò¡'#êŽè× ÷ÕܨfA4×Û $ýU«ÙNϳzÑA>œ%ÞΡ´QjäêÐÁ æ|MüÁšŒì¾¶¥½C FUà•‰7zÏ÷ ºzôs]„Ñ RHÉ„¡É ^m®Ò;ÁÀWmØ ·ÄͯñHMž¯ÐqvHº/BŠ•œ<=!z»S¢o¶«åÏ` Âw## êê %õ 0(ûûûw@#4cw†U>Ž 0DÌ 0[UNk 0ª¹ 0Dcc½§§§§ddEzzzzzzzzzz B|˜IBM Network Printer 12 PCLIBMPCL,È,,,,,È0 ˆ($¡¡ 0A/1A/2AD3A4A5A6A7A[8A9AF‚!'Ôô3|x9A<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¨à$¥¥Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.( £  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(Z(3ýd$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ˆ¢¾ˆˆˆÔÔ€&½Ê&ˆˆ¢¾Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ³Ý ƒýd$ÝÔ€ˆB¾ˆˆˆÔÔ€&þ &ˆˆB¾Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee€Miranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1968). Ñ ° Ñ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ŠB¿ŠˆˆÔÑ7€B¾ŠˆddÈ7ÑÑаÑÑà°ÑÑ  ÑÓ0°,X` ÚÈ‘X°œX0ÓÑ€OYÑÔ‡R7tRŠŠB¿Ôò òÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÌó óÔ#†ŠB¿ŠRR7tÚ#ÔÔ‡X¶>XŠŠB¿ÔÌÌòòÌÌÔ#†ŠB¿ŠXX¶><#ÔÔ‡R7tRŠŠB¿Ôóóò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óòòÔ#†ŠB¿ŠRR7t…#ÔÔ‡X¶>XŠŠB¿ÔÐ Üü ÐÌÌATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLANTóó:à  àòòATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLEEóó:Ð   ÐÌò òLORETTA€LAUERà  àJEFFREY€A.€MODISETTó óÐ Ø ø  ÐLauer€and€Lauerà  àAttorney€General€of€IndianaÐ Ä ä  ÐMartinsville,€IndianaÌà  àà ` àà  àò òLIISI€BRIENó óÐ œ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà  àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌà  àà ` àà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÌÌßA€") °°xdE°KxAßÐ Ll ÐÌÓ  Óò òÔ#†ŠB¿ŠXX¶>â#ÔÔ‡R7tRŠŠB¿ÔIN€THEÐ Gg ÐCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€INDIANAó óÐ “³ ÐÌÓ1ÓÔ‡ RnÉRRR7tÔÔ#† Šù²ŠR RnÉc#ÔÔ‡ X–ð XŠ Šù²ÔßA€") °°xdE°*xAßÐ +K ÐÌÔ#†X¶>X X X–ðá#ÔBRIAN€KEITH€CLEPHANE,à  à)Ð *J Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellant„Defendant,à  à)Ð " Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àvs.à  à)à Ú àNo.€55A01„9905„CR„145Ð Úú Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌSTATE€OF€INDIANA,à  à)Ð ²Ò Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellee„Plaintiff.à  à)Ð Šª  ÐÌÔ‡ X–ð XXX¶>ÔßA€") °°xdE°a!xAßÔ#†X¶>X X X–ð #ÔÐ b!‚" ÐÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€MORGAN€SUPERIOR€COURTÌThe€Honorable€Christopher€L.€Burnham,€JudgeÌCause€No.€55D02„9802„CF„31ÌÌÓ9ÓÔ‡ X–ð XXX¶>ÔßA€") °°xdE° &xAßÔ#†X¶>X X X–ðÃ#ÔÐ  &-$( ÐÌò òÓ  Óñ)Aññ(AñNovemberñ(Aññ)Aññ)AñNovemberñ)Aññ(Añ€ñ(Aññ*Añ19,€1999ñ*AñÐ '(%* ÐÌOPINION€„€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌÌÓ_ ÓGARRARD,€Judgeó óÐ ¤+Ä)/ ÐÌâ âÐ |-œ+1 ÐÑOYÑÑ°àÑÑ  Ññ)AñÑOYÑÑ°àÑÑ  Ññ)Aññ(AñÑOYÑÑ°àÑÑ  Ññ(AñÔ#†ŠB¿ŠXX¶>##Ô›ÓÓà  àIn€an€appeal€of€his€conviction€for€Sexual€Misconduct€with€a€Minor,€a€class€B€felony,Ïâ âand€three€counts€of€Contributing€to€the€Delinquency€of€a€Minor,€class€A€misdemeanors,ÏBrian€Clephane€challenges€the€admission€into€evidence€of€the€statement€he€made€to€a€welfareÏcase€manager.Ìà  àœOn›€October€18,€1997,€Clephane,€who€was€then€thirty„two€years€old,€provided€alcoholÏat€his€house€to€fifteen€year€old€œJ.R.€and€to€her€seventeen€year€old€boyfriend,€ñ.AñM.F..ñ.Aññ.AñM.F.ñ.Añ€€ClephaneÏalso€permitted€M.F.€to€drive€Clephane's€vehicle€to€obtain€more€alcohol.€€When€M.F.€leftÏClephane's€house€to€run€that€errand,€Clephane€had€sexual€intercourse€with€ñ/AñJ.R..ñ/Aññ/AñJ.R.ñ/Añ€€J.R.€wasÏpassed€out€from€alcohol€at€the€time.Ìà  àTen€days€later,€the€Morgan€County€Office€of€Family€and€Children€("OFC")€receivedÏa€report€of€child€abuse€regarding€Clephane€and€ñ0AñJ.R..ñ0Aññ0AñJ.R.ñ0Añ€€On€November€17,€1997,ñ2AñÌñ2Aññ3Añ€ñ3AñOFC€caseÏmanager€Myrtle€Spencer€left€a€message€on€Clephane's€answering€machine€requesting€anÏinterview€concerning€a€report€of€child€abuse€or€neglect.€€Clephane€returned€her€call€andÏagreed€to€an€interview€at€the€OFC€that€same€day.€€Upon€his€arrival,€Clephane€volunteeredÏthat€he€knew€the€interview€was€about€an€alleged€party€at€his€house.€€Clephane€denied€thatÏthere€ñ4Añhadñ4Aññ5Añ€beenñ5Aññ4Añwasñ4Añ€a€party,€but€stated€that€M.F.€had€"brought€a€girl€over€to€his€house.€[M.F.]€wasÏdrunk."€€Record€at€394.€€Upon€further€investigation€with€others,€Clephane's€story€did€notÏ"hold€up."€€Record€at€395„96.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€Clephane€was€found€guilty€of€sexualÏmisconduct€with€a€minor€and€three€counts€of€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor.€Ìà  àIn€asserting€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€granted€his€motion€to€suppress€hisÏstatement€to€Spencer,€Clephane€makes€a€two„part€argument.€€First,€he€contends€that€hisÐ °,(( Ðincriminating€statement€was€not€voluntary€because€Spencer€allowed€him€to€believe€that€heÏwould€lose€custody€of€his€daughter€if€he€did€not€talk€about€the€rape€investigation.€€He€citesÐ ° ÐòòHastings€v.€Stateóó,€560€N.E.2d€664,€667€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990)ñ6Añ,€ñ6Aññ7Añòòñ7Aññ6Añtrans.€deniedñ6Aññ7Añóóñ7Aññ6Añ,ñ6Añ€for€support.€Ð ° ÐSecond,€he€claims€that€Spencer's€failure€to€Mirandize׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€him€violated€his€due€process€right.Ð °  Ðà  àGenerally,€in€reviewing€a€trial€court's€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€we€will€notÏreweigh€the€evidence,€but€will€look€to€the€evidence€most€favorable€to€the€ruling€and€anyÏuncontested€adverse€evidence.€€òòSears€v.€Stateóó,€668€N.E.2d€662,€668€(Ind.€1996).€€Yet,€here,Ð °  Ðour€standard€of€review€is€different.ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ[T]he€Fifth€Amendment€of€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States,›€as€well€asÏArt.€I,€ðð€14€of€the€Indiana€Constitution,€provides€that€persons€shall€be€freeÏfrom€being€compelled€to€make€disclosures€that€might€subject€them€to€criminalÏprosecution€or€that€might€aid€in€convicting€them.€€When€reviewing€casesÏinvolving€involuntary€disclosures,€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€hasÏstated€that€"[t]he€range€of€inquiry€in€this€type€of€case€must€be€broad,"€and€thatÏ"judgment€in€each€instance€[must]€be€based€upon€consideration€of€'the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances.'"€œ€A›€review€of€the€constitutional€involuntariness€is€aÏquestion€of€law,€not€of€fact,€and€will€be€decided€by€the€court€rather€than€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€To€admit€a€confession€into€evidence€in€the€State€of€Indiana,€theÏState€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€knowingly€andÏintelligently€waived€his€right€not€to€incriminate€himself.€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€State€has€met€this€burden,€a€court€on€appeal€will€take€intoÏconsideration€the€entire€record.ÌÌÒ°)ÒÒ°ÒÓ7ÓòòHastingsóó,€560€N.E.2d€at€667€(citations€omitted).Ð °# Ðà  àIn€òòHastingsóó,€a€mother's€boyfriend€broke€her€young€child's€legs,€and€later,€his€arm.€€òòIdóó.Ð °%!! Ðat€665„66.€€A€Child€in€Need€of€Services€action€was€filed€after€the€leg„breaking€incident.€€TheÏState€charged€Hastings€with€neglect€and€she€pled€guilty.€€To€regain€custody€of€her€child,Ð °)%% ÐHastings€"was€ordered€by€the€CHINS€court€and€mandated€by€statute€to€participate€œñ9Añin€ñ9Añand›Ïcooperate€with€the€welfare€department's€CHINS€investigation€and€proceedings."€€òòIdóó.€at€668„Ð ° Ð69.€€During€a€meeting,€a€caseworker€elicited€a€statement€from€Hastings€which€wasÏsubsequently€used€to€convict€her€of€œñ8Añneglect€in€ñ8Añthe›€arm„breaking€incident.Ìà  àOn€appeal,€Hastings€argued€that€"an€individual's€'will€to€resist'€the€caseworker'sÏinquiries€is€greatly€affected€by€this€statutory€scheme€and€the€resulting€intense€psychologicalÏpressure€worked€upon€the€parent€of€a€child€who€may€be€deemed€a€child€in€need€of€services."€ÏòòIdóó.€at€669.€€We€stated,€"[g]iven€this€vital€interest€in€the€preservation€of€an€individual'sÐ ° Ðparental€rights,€we€agree€that€if€the€evidence€before€us€reflects€that€Hastings'€statements€wereÏmade€only€in€response€to€threats,€however€real,€made€by€the€interviewing€caseworker,Ïindicating€that€Hastings'€parental€rights€could€be€terminated€if€she€failed€to€cooperate,€thenÏthe€totality€of€the€circumstances€would€suggest€that€Hastings'€statements€were€made€underÏcompulsion."€€òòIdóó.€€In€reversing€her€conviction,€we€"conclude[d]€that€Hastings'€capacity€forÐ ° Ðself„determination€was€'critically€impaired,'€and€the€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€Hastings'€statement€constituted€a€voluntary€confession."€€òòIdóó.Ð °  Ðà  àIn€reviewing€Clephane's€claims€that€his€statement€to€Spencer€should€not€have€beenÏallowed€into€evidence€because€it€constituted€an€involuntary€confession,€we€must€address€twoÏquestions:€1)€was€Spencer€acting€as€an€agent€of€the€government€in€the€course€of€securing€aÏconviction;€and€2)€was€Clephane's€statement€given€involuntarily?€€òòSee€idóó€at€668.€€The€trialÐ °($$ Ðcourt€determined€that€Spencer€was€acting€as€an€agent€of€the€government.€€The€State€does€notÏcontest€this€determination.€€As€for€the€second€prong,€the€trial€judge€found€that€Clephane'sÐ °,(( Ðstatement€was€voluntary.€€We€agree,€but€elaborate€and€distinguish€the€present€case€fromÏòòHastingsóó.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€OFC€had€not€ordered€Clephane€to€cooperate€with€Spencer€lest€he€risk€theÏtermination€of€his€parental€rights.€€Moreover,€Clephane's€cooperation€was€not€mandated€byÏstatute€or€by€a€court.€€Rather,€Clephane€voluntarily€returned€Spencer's€call€regarding€anÏinvestigation€of€child€abuse€or€neglect€and€agreed€to€an€interview.€€Once€at€the€interview,ÏClephane€"volunteered"€that€he€"knew"€that€the€report€was€about€the€incident€with€œM.F.›€andÏthe€girl.€€Record€at€394.€€He€denied€having€had€a€party€or€having€made€advances€toward€œñ1AñJ.R..ñ1Aññ1AñJ.R.ñ1Añ›€ÏòòIdóó.€€Spencer€did€not€force€Clephane€to€stay.€€To€the€contrary,€Clephane€testified€that€he€knewÐ ° Ðthat€he€was€"free€to€leave"€when€he€arrived€at€the€OFC€for€the€interview.€€Record€at€378.€ÏFurther,€it€appears€from€the€record€that€at€one€point€Clephane€"got€mad€and€left,"€yet€thenÏanswered€Spencer's€questions.€€Record€at€379„80.€€Reviewing€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€we€find€unavailing€Clephane's€contention€that€his€statement€was€involuntary.Ìà  àAs€for€Clephane's€òòMirandaóó€argument,€we€note€that€òòMirandaóó€warnings€are€based€uponÐ ° Ðthe€Fifth€Amendment€Self-Incrimination€Clause,€and€were€designed€to€protect€an€individualÏfrom€being€compelled€to€testify€against€himself.€€òòCurry€v.€Stateóó,€643€N.E.2d€963,€976€(Ind.Ð °" ÐCt.€App.€1994),€òòtrans.€deniedóó.€€€However,€the€procedural€safeguards€of€òòMirandaóó€apply€onlyÐ °$  Ðwhen€an€individual€is€subjected€to€custodial€interrogation.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€police€officers€areÐ °&"" Ðnot€required€to€give€a€defendant€òòMirandaóó€warnings€unless€the€defendant€is€both€in€custodyÐ °($$ Ðâ âand€subject€to€interrogation.Ð °*&& Ðà  àInterrogation€includes€both€express€questioning€and€words€or€actions€on€the€part€ofÏâ âthe€police€that€the€police€should€know€are€reasonably€likely€to€elicit€an€incriminatingÏresponse€from€the€suspect.€€òòIdóó.€at€977.€€However,€interrogation€must€involve€a€measure€ofÐ ° Ðcompulsion€beyond€that€inherent€in€custody€itself.€€òòIdóó.€€In€order€to€be€in€custody€for€purposesÐ °  Ðof€òòMirandaóó,€one€need€not€be€placed€under€formal€arrest.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€692€N.E.2d€474,Ð °  Ð476€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Rather,€the€determination€is€based€upon€whether€the€individual'sÏfreedom€has€been€deprived€in€a€significant€way€or€if€a€reasonable€person€in€the€accused'sÏcircumstances€would€believe€that€he€is€not€free€to€leave.€€òòIdóó;€òòCliver€v.€Stateóó,€666€N.E.2d€59,Ð ° Ð66€(Ind.€1996).€€The€determination€involves€an€examination€of€all€the€objectiveÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€interrogation.€€òòLoving€v.€Stateóó,€647€N.E.2d€1123,€1125€(Ind.Ð ° Ð1995).Ìà  àWhile€Clephane€had€not€been€arrested€by€police€when€he€made€his€statement,€he€wasÏspeaking€with€Spencer,€who€was€functioning€as€an€agent€of€the€government.€€However,€asÏpointed€out€òòsupraóó,€Clephane€testified€that€he€knew€that€he€was€"free€to€leave"€when€heÐ ° Ðarrived€at€the€OFC€for€the€interview.€€Record€at€378.€€œIndeed,€in€view€of€the€circumstances,Ïa€reasonable€person€would€not€have€believed€he€was€prohibited€from€leaving.€€Thus,›ÏClephane€was€not€in€custody€and€need€not€have€been€given€òòMirandaóó€œwarnings›€prior€to€hisÐ °$  Ðstatement€to€Spencer.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€err€in€denying€Clephane's€motion€to€suppressÏhis€statement€and€in€admitting€the€statement€at€trial.Ìà  àœÔ‡ˆB¾ˆŠŠB¿ÔAffirmed.Ô#†ŠB¿ŠˆˆB¾Þ2#ÔÐ °*&& Ðñ9Añ›ñ9AñDARDEN,€J.€and€FRIEDLANDER,€J.€concur.›