Grangruth v. Commonwealth

Decision Date05 April 2022
Docket Number0401-21-1
PartiesDELANO GRANGRUTH v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Jerrauld C. Jones Judge

J Barry McCracken, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Lauren C. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring [1] Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Russell, Athey and Senior Judge Frank Argued at Hampton, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION [*]

WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR., JUDGE

Delano Grangruth was convicted of first-degree murder, arson of an occupied dwelling, and arson of personal property. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence underlying his convictions. He specifically argues that the police detained him without probable cause and that the police and fire marshals unlawfully entered and searched his premises without consent or a warrant. He further argues that a subsequently obtained search warrant was based on an affidavit lacking sufficient indicia of probable cause and that the officers could not have acted reasonably and in good faith in assuming the warrant was valid. For the following reasons, we disagree with appellant and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

"On appeal, we state the facts 'in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.'" Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 413 (2017) (quoting Evans v. Commonwealth 290 Va. 277, 280 (2015)). "When considering whether to affirm the denial of a pretrial suppression motion, an appellate court reviews not only the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing but also the evidence later presented at trial."[2] Hill v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 804, 808 (2019) (quoting White, 293 Va. at 414). In conducting our review, "[w]e also presume-even in the absence of specific factual findings-that the trial court resolved all factual ambiguities or inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the prevailing party and gave that party the benefit of all reasonably debatable inferences from the evidence." Id.

So viewed, the evidence established that appellant and his wife were living together and were the sole occupants of 6201 Wailes Avenue in Norfolk. Mrs. Grangruth suffered from several significant medical conditions, was not mobile, and required daily caretaking. Appellant was her primary caregiver. Amore Home Health Care also provided daily services for Mrs. Grangruth.

On April 17, 2018, Vanessa Jones, an employee of Amore, went to the Grangruth home after another Amore employee attempted a home visit earlier in the day but received no response from the Grangruths. When Jones arrived, she experienced a burning smell as soon as she stepped out of her vehicle. She called for Mrs. Grangruth and knocked on the door. When she saw soot on the door of the house, she called her office, which in turn directed her to notify police. In statements made to both the police and fire department personnel, Jones described appellant as "irate" and "upset" during their previous telephone interactions.

Norfolk Fire and Rescue arrived at the residence at 10:17 a.m. Captain Jerle Plude and firefighter Jerome Fronefield approached the home, and, upon observing soot stain on the outside of the home, believed that an active fire was burning inside. The door was locked, so they forced entry. Plude immediately saw the remains of Mrs. Grangruth in a chair. Based on Mrs. Grangruth's extensive burn injuries, Plude concluded that Mrs. Grangruth was deceased. The firefighters walked through the house and determined there was no longer an active fire. Consistent with standard practice, the firefighters then ventilated the house to remove the contaminated air. That process took about twenty minutes, and afterward they conducted a secondary search for more occupants, finding none.

Norfolk police detectives and Norfolk fire investigators arrived shortly after the ventilation protocol was concluded to conduct "parallel" investigations for the cause and origin of the fire. Norfolk Police Lieutenant Shaun Squyres had been notified by the fire department that the remains of a deceased person were inside the residence. After consulting with individuals at the scene, Squyres learned that the victim's husband was normally at the residence every day. Concerned that the firefighters may have overlooked the husband's presence in the house, Squyres performed his own walk through once the firefighters deemed the property safe to enter.

As Squyres walked through the residence, he saw a nine-volt battery on the carpet just below the smoke detector. He also observed that the smoke detector was intact and that the battery was covered in soot, which led him to conclude that the smoke detector was disabled prior to the fire. Squyres noted that, in a fire investigation, it was unusual to find that the circuit breakers had not been "tripped" and that the air conditioning unit was running. It was also brought to his attention that the home telephone, a landline, had been disconnected. Squyres did not find any other persons in the residence. Based on his observations and information received about the victim and her husband, Squyres determined this was a crime scene. Squyres consulted with his officers and dispatched detectives to prepare a search warrant. Squyres ordered a "stand down" until the search warrant was obtained.

Detective Jean Claude Noel spoke with Jones and Tiffany Porter at the scene. Jones informed him that she arrived at the residence to check on Mrs. Grangruth, but no one answered the door. She smelled fire and called 911. Porter, an office assistant with Amore, relayed that appellant should have been at the residence as he was always there and was his wife's primary caretaker. She tried to contact appellant by calling the house phone and his cellular phone that morning; he never responded, which was uncharacteristic of him. Porter advised that appellant was "mean" to her, the care workers, and to Mrs. Grangruth.

In addition to the information provided by the health care workers, Noel knew that there was a deceased body inside the house and that there had been a fire inside that location. Noel knew that the fire was contained in the living room where Mrs. Grangruth was sitting in a chair. Noel also knew that appellant could be a "very difficult" person and that he was missing. Without having entered the house, Noel sought to obtain a search warrant based on information he possessed at the time.

The affidavit Noel submitted in support of the warrant stated as follows:

On 04/17/18 at approximately 1023 hours Norfolk Fire and Medic 10 responded to 6201 Wailes Ave on a possible fire. When entry was made a deceased body was located, who we believed to [be] a Kathleen Grangruth, with a date of birth of 06/14/1956, and a social security number of []. Medic 10 pronounced the deceased at approximately . . . 1026 hours.
This applicant requests a search warrant for the residence located at 6201 Wailes Ave, in the City of Norfolk, Virginia, to include its curtilage to recover any weapons, fingerprints, DNA, trace evidence, clothing that may contain DNA, or other trace evidence, electronic devices, identifying documents and any and all evidence of the offense of burning or destroy[ing] a dwelling.

The magistrate found probable cause and issued the warrant at 2:33 p.m. Police executed the warrant at 2:53 p.m.

While at the house, Lieutenant Mark Heckman accessed the LINX system to research the Grangruths' address. From this, Heckman became aware of a history of domestic violence at the residence. Among a number of calls for assistance at the residence, Heckman reviewed a specific report from 2013 when appellant threatened to kill Mrs. Grangruth and burn down the house. Heckman showed his officers a photograph of appellant from that report and instructed them to canvass the area and detain appellant.

At approximately 12:05 p.m., Officers Kavoris Fruster and Cheryl Wiltshire-Allen located appellant near a McDonald's restaurant several miles from his house. They approached appellant, engaged him in a brief conversation, and asked for identification, which he provided. Officers then asked appellant to empty his pockets and place his personal items, including his wallet, phone, and medications, into a bag for inventory purposes. Appellant was told he was being detained for further questions. Police patted down appellant for weapons before placing him into the police vehicle. Police transported appellant to the Police Operations Center.

Once at the operations center, officers placed appellant in handcuffs per protocol and escorted him through the building and into the interview room, where officers removed the handcuffs. Investigators advised appellant of his Miranda rights; he waived those rights and agreed to speak with them. During questioning, appellant asked for an attorney and the interrogation was terminated. Soon thereafter, appellant reinitiated contact with the investigators and indicated he wished to speak with them. After signing a legal rights advice form, appellant confessed to pouring gasoline on his wife and setting her on fire. The confession was recorded and transcribed.

Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress alleging three Fourth Amendment violations: "First, that [appellant] was seized and held in custody for several hours without probable cause. Second, police officers searched his home without a warrant. Third, the search warrant for [appellant's] home was defective in that the probable cause statement to secure the warrant does not allege criminal behavior." The Commonwealth filed a response and the trial court held a three-day hearing on the motion. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT