HOFFMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Robert Grooms brought an action for false imprisonment against defendants-appellees Steve Férvida, Frederick Call, Sidney Fish and Dick Bowman. The jury returned a verdict adverse to Grooms and he appeals.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellees, it appears that on Monday, December 2, 1974, Grooms was placed under a warrantless arrest by two police officers not parties to this action. At approximately 5:30 P.M. that day, Detectives Férvida and Fish took custody of Grooms and escorted him from the Elkhart County Police Department substation to the Elkhart County jail. There, Call was instructed by Férvida to book Grooms for [408]*408preliminary investigation of armed robbery. From December 2nd through December 11th, Grooms was confined in the county jail without any criminal charges filed against him or a warrant issued for his arrest. During this period, there were two superior court judges, a circuit court judge, three city court judges and several justices of the peace available in Elkhart County. The record indicates that the normal practice in the county was to take all persons arrested for felonies to the superior courts on Thursday or to the circuit court on Friday.
Around 6:00 P.M. on December 4th, attorney Jerry Virgil discussed his representation of Grooms with the county prosecutor and they agreed to the following arrangement: Grooms would give written statements regarding an armed robbery and unrelated homicide then being investigated. A polygraph test would be administered to Grooms about, the homicide statement. If the test results absolved Grooms of the homicide, he would be released from custody and no criminal charges would be filed against him. After consulting with Virgil on December 5th, Grooms assented to the arrangement. The results of the test were received on December 10th and revealed that Grooms had failed the polygraph. On December 11th, Grooms was indicted for first-degree murder and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was found guilty of first-degree murder on November 7, 1975, and his conviction was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court in Grooms v. State (1978), Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458.
Grooms assigns as error the following issues:
(1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Bowman as a defendant in the action;
(2) whether the trial court erred in denying Grooms’ motion for partial summary judgment;
(3) whether the trial court erred in allowing defendants to impeach their own witness under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 43(B):
(4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to give Grooms’ tendered Final Instruction No. 2; and
(5) whether the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
Grooms maintains the trial court erred in dismissing this action against Bowman who was a major in the Elkhart County Police Department and the superior of defendants Férvida and Call. The original complaint did not name Bowman as a defendant. However, his amended complaint filed on January 21, 1977 alleged that Bowman was liable for the acts of false imprisonment which occurred between December 2 and December 11, 1974. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint against Bowman for failure to institute the action within the two-year statute of limitations provided for in IC 1971, 34-1-2-2 (Burns Code Ed.). That statute states in part:
“The following actions shall be commenced within the periods herein prescribed after the cause of action has accrued, and not afterwards.
“First. For injuries to person or character, for injuries to personal property, and for a forfeiture of penalty given by statute, within two [2] years: .
“Second. All actions against a sheriff, or other public officer, or against such officer and his sureties on a public bond, growing out of a liability incurred by doing an act in an official capacity, or by the omission of an official duty, within five [5] years; but an action may be brought against the officer or his legal representatives, for money collected in an official capacity, and not paid over, at any time within six [6] years.”
Grooms asserts that since the amended complaint specified that Bowman was being sued as a public officer and for acts growing out of his official capacity as a deputy sheriff, his cause of action ought to be governed by the second provision in IC 1971, 34-1 — 2-2 prescribing a five-year statute of limitations. He reasons that since the complained of acts and omissions occurred in December 1974, the statute of limitations would not expire until December 1979.
[409]*409The solution to this problem can be found by looking to the basic nature of the alleged violation of Grooms’ right. So viewed it is evident that the gravamen of the amended complaint is a claim of wrongful imposition of control over Grooms’ freedom of movement and therefore comes within the framework of the fundamental tort of false imprisonment. Clearly the essential nature of the wrong of false imprisonment is an injury to the person. For this reason, the trial court was correct in its analysis that the two-year statute of limitations applied.
In response to the argument that the five-year statute of limitations was applicable, the only facts alleged in the amended complaint to connect Bowman with the imprisonment were his capacity as supervising officer of defendants Férvida and Call and his responsibility for the daily operation of the county jail. No statute has been cited nor have any been found which would impose an official duty upon Bowman to inquire into the legality of the detention of every person incarcerated there.
In an effort to obviate the conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired against Bowman, Grooms advances the argument that the statute was tolled because he was under a legal disability when his cause of action accrued insofar as he was detained in the county jail when the false imprisonment terminated. Indiana law provides for a personal disability making imprisonment of a person in the state’s prison a ground for suspending a statute of limitations that would otherwise bar a cause of action in his favor. IC 1971, 34-1-2-5 (Burns Code Ed.); IC 1971, 34-1-67-1 (Burns Code Ed.). Nevertheless, it is generally held that exceptions to statutes of limitations are to be strictly construed. 77 A.L.R.3d 735 (1977).
Grooms’ proposition that he was under a legal disability presupposes that “county jail” and “state prison” are synonymous expressions. This assumption, however, is ill-founded. While the generic nature of the word “prison” and its allied terms may have led certain writers to use it interchangeably with the word “jail”, see Hall v. State (1928), 199 Ind. 592, 159 N.E. 420; Jones v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 1349, there is a clear distinction between the state prison and a county jail.
The term “state prison” has generally signified the penitentiary maintained by the state for the confinement of prisoners convicted of crimes of a certain degree and of a higher legal character than those for which a person is incarcerated in the county jail. Martin v. Martin (1866), 47 N.H. 52; State v. Johnson (1949), 96 N.H.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HOFFMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Robert Grooms brought an action for false imprisonment against defendants-appellees Steve Férvida, Frederick Call, Sidney Fish and Dick Bowman. The jury returned a verdict adverse to Grooms and he appeals.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellees, it appears that on Monday, December 2, 1974, Grooms was placed under a warrantless arrest by two police officers not parties to this action. At approximately 5:30 P.M. that day, Detectives Férvida and Fish took custody of Grooms and escorted him from the Elkhart County Police Department substation to the Elkhart County jail. There, Call was instructed by Férvida to book Grooms for [408]*408preliminary investigation of armed robbery. From December 2nd through December 11th, Grooms was confined in the county jail without any criminal charges filed against him or a warrant issued for his arrest. During this period, there were two superior court judges, a circuit court judge, three city court judges and several justices of the peace available in Elkhart County. The record indicates that the normal practice in the county was to take all persons arrested for felonies to the superior courts on Thursday or to the circuit court on Friday.
Around 6:00 P.M. on December 4th, attorney Jerry Virgil discussed his representation of Grooms with the county prosecutor and they agreed to the following arrangement: Grooms would give written statements regarding an armed robbery and unrelated homicide then being investigated. A polygraph test would be administered to Grooms about, the homicide statement. If the test results absolved Grooms of the homicide, he would be released from custody and no criminal charges would be filed against him. After consulting with Virgil on December 5th, Grooms assented to the arrangement. The results of the test were received on December 10th and revealed that Grooms had failed the polygraph. On December 11th, Grooms was indicted for first-degree murder and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was found guilty of first-degree murder on November 7, 1975, and his conviction was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court in Grooms v. State (1978), Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458.
Grooms assigns as error the following issues:
(1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Bowman as a defendant in the action;
(2) whether the trial court erred in denying Grooms’ motion for partial summary judgment;
(3) whether the trial court erred in allowing defendants to impeach their own witness under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 43(B):
(4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to give Grooms’ tendered Final Instruction No. 2; and
(5) whether the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
Grooms maintains the trial court erred in dismissing this action against Bowman who was a major in the Elkhart County Police Department and the superior of defendants Férvida and Call. The original complaint did not name Bowman as a defendant. However, his amended complaint filed on January 21, 1977 alleged that Bowman was liable for the acts of false imprisonment which occurred between December 2 and December 11, 1974. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint against Bowman for failure to institute the action within the two-year statute of limitations provided for in IC 1971, 34-1-2-2 (Burns Code Ed.). That statute states in part:
“The following actions shall be commenced within the periods herein prescribed after the cause of action has accrued, and not afterwards.
“First. For injuries to person or character, for injuries to personal property, and for a forfeiture of penalty given by statute, within two [2] years: .
“Second. All actions against a sheriff, or other public officer, or against such officer and his sureties on a public bond, growing out of a liability incurred by doing an act in an official capacity, or by the omission of an official duty, within five [5] years; but an action may be brought against the officer or his legal representatives, for money collected in an official capacity, and not paid over, at any time within six [6] years.”
Grooms asserts that since the amended complaint specified that Bowman was being sued as a public officer and for acts growing out of his official capacity as a deputy sheriff, his cause of action ought to be governed by the second provision in IC 1971, 34-1 — 2-2 prescribing a five-year statute of limitations. He reasons that since the complained of acts and omissions occurred in December 1974, the statute of limitations would not expire until December 1979.
[409]*409The solution to this problem can be found by looking to the basic nature of the alleged violation of Grooms’ right. So viewed it is evident that the gravamen of the amended complaint is a claim of wrongful imposition of control over Grooms’ freedom of movement and therefore comes within the framework of the fundamental tort of false imprisonment. Clearly the essential nature of the wrong of false imprisonment is an injury to the person. For this reason, the trial court was correct in its analysis that the two-year statute of limitations applied.
In response to the argument that the five-year statute of limitations was applicable, the only facts alleged in the amended complaint to connect Bowman with the imprisonment were his capacity as supervising officer of defendants Férvida and Call and his responsibility for the daily operation of the county jail. No statute has been cited nor have any been found which would impose an official duty upon Bowman to inquire into the legality of the detention of every person incarcerated there.
In an effort to obviate the conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired against Bowman, Grooms advances the argument that the statute was tolled because he was under a legal disability when his cause of action accrued insofar as he was detained in the county jail when the false imprisonment terminated. Indiana law provides for a personal disability making imprisonment of a person in the state’s prison a ground for suspending a statute of limitations that would otherwise bar a cause of action in his favor. IC 1971, 34-1-2-5 (Burns Code Ed.); IC 1971, 34-1-67-1 (Burns Code Ed.). Nevertheless, it is generally held that exceptions to statutes of limitations are to be strictly construed. 77 A.L.R.3d 735 (1977).
Grooms’ proposition that he was under a legal disability presupposes that “county jail” and “state prison” are synonymous expressions. This assumption, however, is ill-founded. While the generic nature of the word “prison” and its allied terms may have led certain writers to use it interchangeably with the word “jail”, see Hall v. State (1928), 199 Ind. 592, 159 N.E. 420; Jones v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 1349, there is a clear distinction between the state prison and a county jail.
The term “state prison” has generally signified the penitentiary maintained by the state for the confinement of prisoners convicted of crimes of a certain degree and of a higher legal character than those for which a person is incarcerated in the county jail. Martin v. Martin (1866), 47 N.H. 52; State v. Johnson (1949), 96 N.H. 4, 69 A.2d 515; Denham v. Commonwealth (1905), 119 Ky. 508, 84 S.W. 538. Until the Legislature abolished the distinctions for sentencing purposes among the Indiana State Prison, the Indiana Reformatory, the Indiana State Farm and the Indiana Boys’ School in 1978, the facility known as the Indiana State Prison was used exclusively “for the incarceration of male persons convicted by any of the courts of this state of treason or murder in the first or second degree, of those persons now confined therein, except as hereinafter provided and of all persons convicted by any of the courts of this state of any felony who at the time of such conviction may be thirty [30] years of age or over and of all persons who may be transferred thereto under the provisions of this act.” IC 1971, 11-2-3-2 (Burns Code Ed.).1
The logic of a tolling provision for those persons incarcerated in the Indiana State Prison or another maximum security facility for criminals becomes apparent considering that the restraints imposed on one sentenced to the Indiana State Prison are substantially greater than they are for one incarcerated in a county jail. The trial court was correct in concluding that the terms “state prison” and “county jail” are not synonymous expressions. Consistent with what has been stated herein, the trial court properly granted Bowman's motion to dismiss.
Grooms also claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for partial summary [410]*410judgment. Since it was uncontroverted that he was placed under a warrantless arrest and held in excess of 48 hours without the benefit of a judicial hearing on the legality of his restraint, Grooms submits summary judgment should have been rendered on the issue of his false imprisonment.
A motion for summary judgment may be sustained if the pleadings and other matters filed with the court disclose there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56(C). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the facts established by the opponent must be accepted as true and all doubts must be resolved against the proponent of the motion. Crase v. Highland Village Value Plus Pharmacy (1978), Ind.App., 374 N.E.2d 58.
The essence of defendants’ argument was that Grooms waived his right to a prompt hearing by agreeing to await the results of the polygraph examination. Taking this as true for purposes of the motion, there was indeed a question of fact presented regarding the cause of the delay in taking Grooms before a magistrate. Summary judgment directed to this point was properly denied.
Grooms contends the trial court erred in allowing defendants to impeach their own witness since such impeachment violated the motion in limine order and because there was no showing of manifest surprise or that the witness was indispensable. Prior to the trial, the court granted Grooms’ motion in limine prohibiting defense counsel from inquiring whether Grooms had been convicted of first-degree murder or any other felonies without first approaching the bench and informing plaintiff’s counsel. At trial defendants called Grooms as their witness. The pertinent exchange between defense counsel and Grooms reads as follows:
“Question: Would you state your name please.
“Answer: Robert Grooms
“Question: Before we go into questioning on the case today, isn’t it a fact that you were convicted of the crime of first degree murder in November, 1975?
“Answer: Yes it is.
“Question: Were you also convicted of theft in the year 1962?
“Ms. Stam: Objection, Your Honor, if this is intended to be impeachment; if so, he called him as his own witness and he cannot impeach his own witness.
“Mr. Ulmer: Your Honor, I called him as an adverse witness and under the new Indiana Trial Rules, I can do that.
“The Court: I’ll overrule the objection on the basis of calling him under that particular rule, you may proceed.
“Question: Mr. Grooms, were you convicted of theft in 1962, or was it grand larceny.
“Answer: Grand Larceny, yes.”
It is apparent that Grooms failed to preserve any alleged error pertaining to violation of the motion in limine order insofar as his objection was predicated on impeachment grounds. Where error is assigned to the admission of evidence, the grounds for the objection presented on appeal must be the same as that urged at trial. Gradison v. State et al. (1973), 260 Ind. 688, 300 N.E.2d 67.
Moreover, Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 43(B) sanctions defense counsel’s method of impeaching Grooms. That rule provides:
“Scope of the examination and cross-examination. A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions. A party may call an adverse party or an officer, director, managing agent or executive officer, or other person duly authorized and consenting to testify on its behalf, of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party, and interrogate him by leading questions and contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, and the witness thus called may be [411]*411contradicted and impeached by or on behalf of the adverse party also, and may be cross-examined by the adverse party only upon the subject matter of his examination in chief.” (Emphasis added.)
The questions regarding Grooms’ convictions for murder and theft could be considered as affecting his credibility as a witness. IC 1971, 34-1-14-14 (Burns Code Ed.). See Barnard v. Wabash R. Co. (8th Cir. 1953), 208 F.2d 489 where in a false imprisonment case defense counsel was permitted to impeach a witness regarding his confession for an unrelated robbery. There was no error in the trial court’s judgment here.
Grooms next argues the trial court erred in refusing to give his tendered Final Instruction No. 2 which reads as follows:
“You are instructed that there was at all relevant times a statute in full force and effect in Indiana which in pertinent part reads as follows:
Whenever any arrest has been made by any member of (a) police force, it shall be the duty of the officer ... to bring the person arrested before the . court having jurisdiction of the offense, to be dealth (sic) with according to law. If the arrest is made during the hours when such court is not in session, or if the judge is not holding court, such offender shall be detained . until there shall be an opportunity for such hearing at the earliest practicable time, or until he shall have been given bond for his appearance. But no person shall be so detained longer than twenty-four hours without such examination, except where Sunday intervenes, in which case no person shall be detained longer than forty-eight hours.
“If you find, from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants or any of them violated this section, you may consider this as evidence that the defendants or any of them falsely imprisoned the plaintiff.
“I.C. 18-1-11-8”
IC 1971, 18-1-11-8 (Burns Code Ed.) applies only to city and town police officers. In the case at bar, this statute was inappo-site because defendants Férvida, Call and Bowman were Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department officers while defendant Fish was a member of the Indiana State Police.
Thus, the trial court committed no error in refusing an instruction unsupported by any evidence. Lamb v. York (1969), 252 Ind. 252, 247 N.E.2d 197.
Alternatively, Grooms insists that applying the maximum appearance time limits in IC 1971, 18 — 1—11—8 to city and town police officers only violates equal protection of the law since there is no difference in the situation of one arrested by county or state police as opposed to city or town police that would permit distinct maximum periods. The fact that the state or county police are not bound by the strictures of IC 1971, 18-1-11-8 is of no consequence here. As long as a person arrested by state or county police is brought before a neutral and detached magistrate without unreasonable delay, he cannot be heard to complain. To construe the statute as including all police officers would be an act of judicial legislation.
Lastly, Grooms urges that the verdict of the jury was contrary to law. He suggests that the nine-day delay in presenting him before a magistrate was unreasonable as a matter of law.
False imprisonment consists of an unlawful restraint upon one’s freedom of locomotion or the deprivation of liberty of another without his consent. Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store etc. (1964), 136 Ind.App. 467, 202 N.E.2d 583. If a person arrested is detained or held by an officer for a longer period of time than is required under the circumstances without a warrant or other authority, the arrestee will have a cause of action for false imprisonment against the officer and all others by whom he has been unlawfully detained or held. Harness v. Steele (1902), 159 Ind. 286, 64 N.E. 875; Matovina et al. v. Hult (1955), 125 Ind.App. 236, 123 N.E.2d 893. More[412]*412over, proof of the fact of imprisonment is sufficient to raise the presumption that such imprisonment was illegal; the burden of establishing justification for the imprisonment is on the defendants. Black v. Marsh (1903), 31 Ind.App. 53, 67 N.E. 201.
The defendants in the instant case grounded their justification defense on Grooms’ waiver. While Grooms’ attorney-averred he did not agree that Grooms could be held without an appearance before a magistrate, the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom favoring the defendants indicates otherwise. The record reveals that attorney Virgil worked out an arrangement with the prosecutor on December 4, 1974, whereby Grooms would be freed on the murder charge if he passed the polygraph. After consulting with Virgil, Grooms agreed to this arrangement. The test results were received on December 10th and showed that Grooms had failed the polygraph. He was indicted for the homicide on December 11th and taken before a magistrate the following day.
The conduct of an arrestee may amount to a waiver of the right to complain of the failure to promptly take him before a magistrate or court. 98 A.L.R.2d 966 (1964). Thus in an action for false imprisonment, a plaintiff cannot take advantage of delays due to his own conduct and that includes the conduct of those who represent him. Janus v. United States (9th Cir., 1930), 38 F.2d 431. If the defendants had taken Grooms before a magistrate prior to receipt of the polygraph results, it would have violated the terms of the agreement that Virgil negotiated and Grooms agreed to. In such an instance, the several defendants might have been subjected to false arrest or false imprisonment charges if Grooms had passed the polygraph. Although the evidence was in conflict, the jury was nonetheless entitled to determine that Grooms, represented by competent counsel, intelligently waived his right to appear before a magistrate and that any delay was attributable to himself. The evidence does not lead unerringly to a conclusion opposite that reached by the jury.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARRARD, P. J., concurs.
STATON, J., dissents with opinion.