## Facts

- Mark Lewis Harden, age 17, asked Eunice Stone for money while she visited his parents’ home; when she refused, he forced her into a garage, raped her, and beat her to death.
- The victim’s nude body was found in the garage by Harden’s father, who contacted police.
- Police brought Harden to headquarters; at his request, his father was present.
- Harden and his father spoke privately for about twenty minutes before questioning.
- Police advised Harden and his father of Harden’s rights; both signed a juvenile rights waiver form.
- Harden gave a videotaped statement admitting robbery, rape, and the killing; he said he had used alcohol and marijuana earlier and claimed he lacked control during the offense.
- Harden moved to suppress the videotaped confession, arguing noncompliance with Indiana’s juvenile-waiver statute requiring meaningful parent consultation; the trial court denied the motion.
- At trial, Harden testified in substantial accordance with the videotaped confession, recounting the same details.
- A jury convicted Harden of murder (three counts merged), robbery (Class A), rape (Class A), and confinement (Class B). The jury recommended death, but the judge imposed consecutive terms totaling 120 years, with a concurrent 10-year term for confinement.

## Issues

1. Whether Harden’s waiver of rights and videotaped confession were inadmissible because the State failed to satisfy Indiana Code § 31-6-7-3, including the requirement of meaningful consultation with a custodial parent before waiver.
2. If admission of the videotaped confession was error, whether it was harmless because Harden later testified to the same incriminating facts at trial.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the record supported a knowing and voluntary waiver under Indiana Code § 31-6-7-3, including meaningful consultation with Harden’s father.
- The court also held that even if the videotaped confession had been admitted in error, the error was harmless because Harden’s trial testimony was substantially the same, making the videotape cumulative.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana Code § 31-6-7-3 (as then in force), a juvenile’s constitutional rights may be waived only through counsel with the juvenile’s knowing and voluntary joinder, or by a custodial parent/guardian who knowingly and voluntarily waives, has no adverse interest, and has engaged in meaningful consultation with the juvenile.
- Meaningful consultation may be supported by evidence that the juvenile requested the parent’s presence, the parent and juvenile had a private opportunity to confer before questioning, and both reviewed and signed a written rights waiver after warnings.
- Admission of a confession that is cumulative of the defendant’s later in-court testimony does not require reversal when the same incriminating facts are proved by other properly admitted evidence (harmless-error doctrine).

## Conclusion

The court upheld Harden’s convictions and aggregate sentence, concluding that his custodial-parent consultation and joint written waiver supported admission of his videotaped confession and that, in any event, any error was harmless because Harden testified to the same facts at trial.


Harden v. State, 576 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. 1991)