Love v. State

• Decision Date: 28 September 2020
• Docket Number: S20A0802
• Citation: 309 Ga. 833,848 S.E.2d 882
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: LOVE v. The STATE.

309 Ga. 833

848 S.E.2d 882

LOVE

v.The STATE.

S20A0802

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 28, 2020

Jason Kang, 1160 Pace Street, Covington, Georgia 30014, Attorneys for the Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Alex Martin Bernick, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Layla Hinton Zon, District Attorney, Alcovy Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 1132 Usher Street, N.W., Suite 313, Covington, Georgia 30014, Attorneys for the Appellee.

McMillian, Justice.

Antavian Love was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Enrique Trejo.¹On appeal, Love, who was 16 years old at the time the crimes were committed, asserts that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement and in sentencing him as a juvenile to serve life without parole.For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the record shows that Trejo was the general manager at the El Charro restaurant located on Covington Bypass Road in Newton County.When he did not return home on the evening of June 18, 2016, his wife went to the restaurant looking for him.The restaurant's surveillance cameras showed Trejo locking up the restaurant, entering his vehicle, and driving away as usual around 11:30 p.m. Police also obtained surveillance video from a nearby gas station that showed Trejo pull into the parking lot and enter the store.When he exited, three individuals got into his vehicle with him.

Early on the morning of June 19, a driver reported what appeared to be a body lying on the side of Lower River Road.When officers responded, they observed broken safety glass, consistent with that from a car window, in the roadway.A trail of blood led from the broken glass to the side of the road where Trejo was lying face down in a ditch, dead from multiple gunshot wounds.Officers also located a spent .40-caliber Smith & Wesson casing on the other side of the road.Trejo's wallet, which contained more than $450, was recovered from his back pocket.Officers were unable to locate Trejo's vehicle, a dark-colored Ford Expedition, and an all-points bulletin was issued for law enforcement to be on the lookout for the vehicle.

Around 9:00 p.m. that evening, a Covington Police Department officer observed a dark-colored Ford Expedition at an intersection and attempted to catch up with it.The vehicle continued at a high rate of speed, but the officer was eventually able to get close enough to run the tag and confirm that it was Trejo's stolen vehicle.After the officer activated his lights and sirens, the vehicle continued through a neighborhood, running through stop signs, until it reached a dead end, where the vehicle's four occupants fled on foot.The officer attempted to pursue them through the woods while directing backup.He then received a call that another officer had detained two individuals, including Love, at gunpoint on the other side of the woods.

After informing Love of his rights under Miranda ,² officers interviewed him for just under an hour.Love confessed to shooting Trejo with a Smith & Wesson because Trejo was "talking reckless" while Love was just trying to get a ride to some "females’ house" to take them to a party.A recording of the interview was played for the jury at trial.From Love's bedroom, officers collected a .40-caliber Taurus handgun and a 15-round magazine containing six .40-caliber Smith & Wesson rounds.Officers also located two .40-caliber shell casings in Trejo's vehicle.A GBI latent fingerprint examiner testified that a fingerprint taken from the magazine matched Love's fingerprint.A GBI firearms examiner testified that the shells recovered from the side of the road where Trejo was found and from Trejo's vehicle were fired from the weapon located in Love's bedroom, and the two bullets recovered from Trejo's body during the autopsy were fired from the same weapon.The medical examiner testified that Trejo had four gunshot wounds, each of which damaged major organs and each would likely have been fatal on its own.

C. M., who was 12 years old at the time of the incident, testified that on the night of the shooting, he was sitting on the front porch of his aunt's house with his 13-year-old cousin, S. C., when Love came by three separate times to see if they wanted to go to McDonald's with him.Eventually, C. M. and his cousin agreed to walk with Love when he offered to pay for their food.When they got to the restaurant, only the drive-through was still open.They walked to a nearby gas station to ask for a ride home because Love said he did not want to walk back home on the paths.The third person they asked, whom C. M. identified as Trejo, agreed to give them a ride home.However, when they got to the street where they should have turned to go home, Love told Trejo to keep going.Then Love told Trejo to stop because he thought he lost his phone.Trejo stopped in the middle of the road, and Love got out of the car and started searching his pockets.Love then pulled out a gun and, without provocation, shot Trejo one time.Trejo turned and tried to open the driver's side door, and Love shot him in the back and then shot him again.Love ran around the front of the car and dragged Trejo to the side of the road.Love then got back in the car and drove away, warning C. M. and S. C. not to "snitch" or he would kill them too.Love briefly stopped in a cul-de-sac to clean the shattered glass and blood out of the car.He then drove to a nearby apartment complex, removed all the papers from the vehicle, and told the boys to walk on a short path to get home.On the way, Love instructed them to take off their jackets and throw them in the bushes.S. C. corroborated this testimony.

1.Love does not dispute the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Love guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted.SeeJackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III)(B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560(1979).³

2.Love asserts that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress his custodial statement because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right against self-incrimination.Specifically, Love argues that officers did not promptly give notice to his mother that he was being taken into custody as required by OCGA § 15-11-501 (b), he was not given a chance to contact his mother or an attorney, he was not aware of the charges on which he was being detained, and the investigators’ method of questioning led him to believe they were trying to help him.We disagree.

"Even where, as here, a juvenile is involved, the question of whether there was a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding a police interrogation."Heard v. State , 287 Ga. 554, 556 (2), 697 S.E.2d 811(2010)(citation omitted).See alsoGreen v. State , 282 Ga. 672, 675 (2), 653 S.E.2d 23(2007)("Even assuming that OCGA § [15-11-501] was violated by the failure to contact a parent or guardian, there is no automatic exclusion of a juvenile's statement if the parent is not separately advised; instead the question of waiver [of his constitutional rights] must by analyzed under [the totality of the circumstances].").In considering the totality of the circumstances in this context, we look to, among other factors,

the accused's age and education; his knowledge of the charge and his constitutional rights; his ability to consult with family, friends, or an attorney; the length, method, and time of the interrogation; and whether he previously had refused to give a statement or repudiated the statement later.

Norris v. State , 282 Ga. 430, 431 (2), 651 S.E.2d 40(2007)(citation omitted).

Moreover, "[i]n reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo[,] ... constru[ing] the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the trial court's factual findings and judgment."White v. State , 307 Ga. 601, 602 (2), 837 S.E.2d 838(2020)(citations omitted).In addition, we will generally limit our consideration of the disputed facts to those expressly found by the trial court.Seeid.

So viewed, the record shows that at the Jackson-Denno⁴ hearing, Covington Police Officer Kenyatta Barnes testified that he was responding to the pursuing officer's call for assistance on the night of June 19, 2016, and detained Love and another juvenile as they came running through the woods after fleeing the Ford Expedition.When Love said that he was only 16 years old and asked why he was being arrested, Officer Barnes responded that Love was being detained, not arrested.After Love again stated, "I'm only 16," Officer Barnes told him to be quiet, and Love complied.According to Officer Barnes, Love did not ask to call his mother.Another officer then read a statement of Miranda rights for juveniles, including the right to confer with a parent or legal guardian during the investigation, before Love and the other juvenile were transported to the Newton County Sherriff's Office.The transporting officer testified that he did not converse with Love.⁵Although Love spoke to the other juvenile during the ride,⁶ the officer could not make out their conversation, only hearing Love laugh at times.

Two Newton County Sheriff's Office investigators interviewed Love at approximately 11:15 p.m. after advising him of his rights using a form designed for juveniles that included the right to have a parent or...