Commonwealth v. Helvenston, Criminal Docket No.: CR09-2330
| Decision Date | 17 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Docket No.: CR09-2330 |
| Court | Circuit Court of Virginia |
| Parties | Re: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kelsey Erin Helvenston |
James O. Broccoletti, Esq.
Zoby & Broccoletti, P.C.
6663 Stoney Point South
Norfolk, VA 23502
Paula M. Bruns
Senior Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney
Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney
800 E. City Hall Avenue
Suite 600
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tanja M. Korpi
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney
Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney
800 E. City Hall Avenue
Suite 600
Norfolk, VA 23510
Dear Ms. Bruns, Ms. Korpi and Mr. Broccoletti:
As you know, on October 14, 2009, defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress defendant's March 22-23, 2009 statements to members of the Norfolk Police Department on Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds. On October 20 and 22, 2009, the Court conducted lengthy proceedings on the suppression motion. As part of the evidentiary presentation, the Court reviewed six separate DVD recordings of defendant's several hours of questioning by homicide detectives. Finally, after the filing of additional legal briefs respecting the suppression motion, the Court heard final argument from counsel on November 30, 2009.
The Court has considered all of the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. It also has taken time to carefully review the numerous cases cited by counsel and to conduct additional legal research. From a factual standpoint, the Court has considered the record holistically, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendant's statements of March 22 and 23. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants defendant's Motion to Suppress.
Defendant seeks to suppress her statements on three grounds. First, she contends that her statements were not voluntary because she did not adequately understand her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights (hereinafter "Miranda rights") as explained to her by detectives and because their interrogation tactics negated the voluntariness of her statements. Second, defendant contends that although her initial submission to police questioning was consensual, the detectives ultimately interrogated her under a de facto arrest without probable cause to do so, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. Third, defendant argues that the police failed to honor her invocation of her Fifth Amendment right to cease further questioning, which she invoked during the course of her custodial interrogation and prior to her challenged statements.
In the sections that follow, the Court will discuss its factual conclusions and each of defendant's legal arguments.
The Court will not endeavor to catalog the entire factual record of the suppression motion, or even to make reference to all facts relevant to its decision to grant that motion. However, it will provide an overview of the factual record and summarize its conclusions resulting from its consideration of that record.
The indictments allege that Defendant used a firearm to commit the second-degree murder of Anthony Sanderlin a/k/a "Bump", (hereinafter "Sanderlin" or "Bump"), on March 21, 2009. The shooting took place at Sanderlin's apartment home, located at 7433 Fenner Street in Norfolk. In the hours immediately following Sanderlin's death, Norfolk homicide detectives D.R. Jarvis ("Jarvis") and R. G. Smith ("Smith") received the case assignment and traveled to the Fenner Street location. They arrived at approximately 8:00 a.m. and toured the purported crime scene. They entered Sanderlin's small upstairs apartment and surveyed each of its rooms. Jarvis described their observations at the suppression hearing and the Commonwealth introduced a number of photographs to corroborate his account. The detective noted a considerable amount of blood stains and smears in the living room and kitchen areas. They noticed bullet holes in the refrigerator and the presence of five cartridge cases on the floor behind a reclining chair. A blood trail led from the apartment and down a stairwell. The detectives saw blood stains on one or more cars parked in front of the apartment building. The blood trail ended at an outdoor brick stoop several yards' distance from the stairwell descending from Sanderlin's apartment. The detectives learned that Sanderlin sought a neighbor's assistance at that location before he expired. Additionally, the detectives spoke to an apartment complex resident with the last name, "Carter", who witnessed eventsproximate to Sanderlin's shooting. He described having seen from his window a white vehicle from which three persons exited and walked into the stairwell leading to his apartment. One of the three was Sanderlin, one he described as an attractive Hispanic or white female, and the third he described as a male wearing a gray "hoodie". Jarvis then recounted Carter's further statement:
He said they walked into the apartment. He said shortly- -minutes- -or seconds, several seconds later, minutes, he said he heard several gunshots. He said at that point the female ran out of the apartment building, got into the car, backed it up to the door in front of a rusty vehicle with a rusty top that was parked in front of the apartment building and waited. And shortly a minute later the male that was in the passenger seat came running downstairs. At that point, he said the vehicle drove off and went down Guy Street. At that point later, he said that is when he heard the victim, Mr. Sanderlin yells for help, went downstairs, and attempted to call 911.
Transcript of Proceedings, pages 109-110.
In the hours that followed, Jarvis and Smith undertook further investigation. They obtained cellular telephone records for Sanderlin and noted calls made to defendant's cell phone in the time immediately preceding Sanderlin's death. The detectives sought to speak with defendant, a seventeen year old Caucasian female, who they learned had previously been charged with an alcohol-related driving offense in Norfolk. After trying to contact defendant by telephone and traveling to both her Virginia Beach home and her Lynnhaven Mall restaurant job site, the detectives finally met with defendant at her home at approximately 8:30 p.m. March 22, 2009. They noted that she drove a light-colored Chevrolet Impala.
The detectives asked defendant if she would agree to speak with them at the Norfolk Police Operations Center and she agreed to do so. They did not specify to defendant the subject matter about which they wished to speak to her; they told her only that it was about events that had occurred in Norfolk. They allowed her opportunity to communicate with her mother and then followed her to Norfolk. Defendant drove her own car and, while enroute, she purchased seven dollars of gasoline at the detectives' expense. Jarvis recalled observing defendant use her cell phone during the drive.
Upon arrival at the Police Operation Center, the detectives placed defendant into an interview room. They allowed her to keep her personal belongings. They confirmed that the car belonged to defendant, albeit titled to her mother, and that defendant normally drove it. She and the detectives chatted casually during this time. At one point, Jarvis exited the interview room and called defendant's mother. Defendant's mother acknowledged that her daughter had notified her that she was on her way to speak with the police. Jarvis did not disclose to defendant's mother his and Smith's intention to question defendant about Sanderlin's death.
Within a short time after Jarvis' conversation with defendant's mother, he and Smith began questioning defendant in the interview room. Early on, defendant acknowledged to them that she had traveled to Norfolk on the night of Friday, March 20, 2009, with her sixteen-year-old boyfriend, Shawn Hunter ("Hunter"). She told them that she had gone to Norfolk to drop off a cell phone. Based upon this information, the detectives decided to Mirandize her.
At the time of her questioning, defendant was a high school senior in Virginia Beach, earned good grades and was scheduled to graduate on time. She planned to attend college. She held a part-time job and satisfactorily managed her own finances. She appeared well-groomed, well-spoken, polite, respectful, and articulate. She professed faith in God and indicated that she maintained an active church life. Defendant experienced great tragedy in her life when, on March 31, 2004, her father, with whom she was close, was killed in Iraq during military-related operations. The record is not clear whether he was in active duty military service at the time of his death, or instead worked for the "Blackwater" security company. In any event, his death in Fallujah, Iraq, garnered substantial publicity in the United States, especially locally, due to the desecration and hanging of his body by enemy combatants.
Defendant previously had encountered the Norfolk police and court system. On September 26, 2008, Officer M. Millard, while working in the vicinity of Old Dominion University, observed defendant driving erratically and stopped her car. At the time she was with two young African American males. One of them was the subject of an arrest warrant in Virginia Beach for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The other passenger had no warrants, but Officer Millard indicated that he was known to police for gang-affiliated activities. During this traffic stop, defendant somewhat manipulated Officer Millard regarding her father's tragic death:
She stated that her father was killed in Iraq last month, and described him to me, that he was the one in Blackwater and hung from the Fallujah bridge, and I apologized to her that that happened. I said, Well, I said, you really shouldn't be drinking and driving. In light of the things that happened, I understand maybe some of the stress that you're certainly under. I said, I can't begin to imagine that. I said, but drinking and doing something like this is very dangerous.
To continue reading
Request your trial