Ex parte Shonnell Jackson

• Decision Date: 15 February 2002
• Docket Number: 1981723
• Parties: Ex parte Shonelle Jackson (In re: Shonelle Jackson v. State of Alabama) 1981723
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Ex parte Shonelle Jackson

(In re: Shonelle Jackson v. State of Alabama)

1981723

OCTOBER TERM, 2001-2002

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

02/15/2002

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (Montgomery Circuit Court, CC-97-2300; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-97-2050)

On Return to Remand

PER CURIAM.

Shonelle Jackson was convicted of murder made capital because the killing occurred during the commission of a robbery in the first degree, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, and was sentenced to death on that conviction. He was also convicted of first-degree theft of property, see § 13A-8-3, Ala. Code 1975, and on that conviction was sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual offender with three prior felony convictions, see § 13A-5-9(c)(2), Ala. Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both convictions and sentences. See Jackson v. State, [Ms. CR-97-2050, May 28, 1999] So. 2d (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). This Court granted certiorari review, see Rule 39(c), Ala.R.App.P., as it read before it was amended effective May 19, 2000, ¹

and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for that court to remand the case for the trial court to conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of Jackson's inculpatory statement. Ex parte Jackson, [Ms. 1981723, May 18, 2001] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2001). We instructed the Court of Criminal Appeals to forward the trial court's return to this Court. It appears that the trial court has complied with our directions and has conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of Jackson's statement.

I.

Jackson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to a law-enforcement officer because, he says, the officer tricked him into making the statement. "'In reviewing the correctness of the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court makes all the reasonable inferences and credibility choices supportive of the decision of the trial court.'" Kennedy v. State, 640 So. 2d 22, 26 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), quoting Bradley v. State, 494 So. 2d 750, 760-61 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985), aff'd, 494 So. 2d 772 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 923 (1987). The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed unless it is palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. See Dixon v. State, 588 So. 2d 903 (Ala. 1991); Parker v. State, 587 So. 2d 1072, 1088 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991); Rutledge v. State, 680 So. 2d 997, 1002 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996); and Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), aff'd, 758 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 (2000).

Extrajudicial statements are prima facie involuntary and inadmissible; the duty rests on the trial court to determine whether the statement is voluntary, and unless it appears that it is voluntary it should not be admitted. See Farrior v. State, 728 So. 2d 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998). The burden is on the State to show voluntariness and a Miranda ² predicate before such a statement can be admitted into evidence. See Lewis v. State, 535 So. 2d 228 (Ala. 1988). "Whether a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent depends on the particular facts and underlying circumstances of each case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused -- i.e., the totality of the circumstances." Click v. State, 695 So. 2d 209, 218 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). The voluntariness of an inculpatory statement remains undetermined until the trial court has examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement. See Ex parte Hill, 557 So. 2d 838, 841 (Ala. 1989).

The trial court's finding that a statement was voluntary need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dixon v. State, supra. The test for the voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession or an inculpatory statement is whether, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, the statement was free from inducement, threat, or promise, either expressed or implied, that would have produced in the mind of the accused any fear of harm or hope of favor. Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 (1999).

Moreover, "more subtle forms of psychological manipulation, such as trickery or deception by the police, have not been considered sufficiently coercive, standing alone, to render a confession or incriminating statement involuntary." Ex parte Hill, 557 So. 2d at 841.

The trial court submitted the following order on return to remand:

"On August 31, 2001, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals remanded this case to the trial court to conduct proceedings consistent with the Opinion as written and released by the Alabama Supreme Court on May 18, 2001. The Alabama Supreme Court [had] remanded this case to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals with the instructions to order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the admissibility of Defendant Jackson's extrajudicial statement. The trial court appointed the Honorable Bryan A. Stevenson to represent the defendant at the hearing, which was conducted on October 24, 2001. At the hearing, the defendant was represented by Mr. Stevenson, as well as the Honorable Randall Susskind, both of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama. The State of Alabama was represented by the Honorable Susan Redmond, Chief Deputy District Attorney for Montgomery County. After hearing the testimony and accepting exhibits introduced into evidence, this Court advised the parties that they would have 7 days in which to present any Memorandum of Law supporting their respective positions. Defense counsel submitted a Memorandum of Law on November 2, 2001, and this Court has reviewed the same.

"The State of Alabama called its first and only witness, Detective A. J. Signore, of the Montgomery Police Department. Detective Signore testified that he had been employed with the Montgomery Police Department for 10 years, and in 1997, had been a homicide investigator. Pursuant to this case, Detective Signore testified that the defendant's mother signed a 'consent to search' her home wherein detectives confiscated certain items, including .380-caliber bullets. The detectives, before leaving the defendant's mother's home, told the mother that if the defendant came home she was to notify [them] that the police would like to talk to him. Later that afternoon, the defendant went to police headquarters to talk to the detectives. At the hearing, Detective Signore testified that the defendant, who was 18 years old at the time, reported to the police headquarters where Detective Signore and his partner, Detective C.D. Phillips, were on duty. Detective Signore testified that the defendant was read his Miranda rights, after which he signed the waiver form indicating that he understood his rights, that he had not been promised anything or threatened in any way and that he wished to give a statement to the police. The defendant's statement was taken in Detective Signore's office at the Montgomery Police Department with Detective Phillips was also present.*

"Initially, the defendant denied even knowing the three other codefendants that were involved in the shooting. Detective Signore testified at the hearing that he had statements from the 3 codefendants stating that all 3 of them knew the defendant and that the defendant had been involved in the shooting. Detective Signore stated that in order to get the defendant to tell the truth about his relationship with the other 3 codefendants, he told the defendant that a Dairy Queen [fast-food restaurant] cup had been found in the vehicle with the defendant's fingerprints on it. After Detective Signore told the defendant this information, the defendant then told Detective Signore that, in fact, he did know the other codefendants, but denied any involvement in the shooting. After telling Detective Signore that he knew the other codefendants, he asked the detective if he could make another statement. In his second statement, Defendant Jackson admitted to having been with the other codefendants at the time of the murder and to possessing a .380 automatic pistol.

"The defense called Ms. Rosalyn Jordan as its first witness. Ms. Jordan is a sixth-grade teacher at Patterson Elementary School. She testified that the defendant had been a student in her classroom and her records indicated that he had failed the first and third grades. She stated that the defendant was a low-achiever and that he was thirteen-years-old in the sixth-grade. She also stated that she had only seen the defendant as few times since he had been a sixth-grader in her class. The defense also called Ms. Thelma Owens, who is an employee at the Southern Poverty Law Center. She is related to the defendant, as his aunt, and she stated that she helped to raise him. She went on to state that the defendant was very respectful of her and any type of authority figures.

"There was absolutely no question that Detective Signore lied to the defendant about the fingerprints on the Dairy Queen cup. It is important to recognize, however, that the lie was told by Detective Signore only in order to find out if the defendant did, in fact, have a relationship with the other codefendants. The lie was not told to induce the defendant to confess [to] a crime. Alabama Courts have repeatedly held that a confession is not inadmissible merely because it was induced by a trick or misrepresentation. As defense counsel pointed out in its Memorandum of Law, although police deception is not conclusive as to the voluntariness of a statement, it is certainly a factor to be considered in the determination of its voluntariness. See Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969). This Court would again note, however, that the deception used in this case was not deception that led to a confession to the actual crime. The deception or misrepresentation used by Detective Signore was only used in order to establish whether or not a...