Morales v. Commonwealth Of Va.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2494-09-4 |
| Parties | ARNOLD J. MANCIA MORALES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Present: Judges Haley, Alston and Senior Judge Clements
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY
J. Daniel Griffith, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Josephine F. Whalen, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Arnold J. Mancia Morales (appellant) appeals from his convictions for rape, in violation of Code § 18.2-61, burglary while armed with a deadly weapon, in violation of Code § 18.2-89, assault and battery, in violation of Code § 18.2-51, and abduction with the intent to defile, in violation of Code § 18.2-48. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police officers. Appellant argues these statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of abduction with intent to defile, because the asportation and detention of the victim within her home was incidental to the crime of rape. Finally, appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he was armed when he entered the victim's home and, therefore, the trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence tosupport a conviction of burglary while armed with a deadly weapon. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
On August 29, 2008, at approximately midnight, a loud crash woke the victim, a seventy-five-year-old woman. She exited her bedroom and entered the living area of the house. The victim lived in the residence alone. There, she encountered appellant who had "crashed into [the] sliding door" that separated the interior of her home from the screened-in porch. Although the victim was not wearing her glasses, she could see appellant come through the sliding door, walk toward her, and hold two fingers to her eyes and two fingers to her throat. Appellant forced the victim to walk with him to her bedroom, then back to the dining room, and finally back to her bedroom.
In the bedroom, appellant threw the victim down on the bed. He spoke in broken English and repeatedly expressed his desire for money or valuables. He repeatedly stated, "I slice you up if you don't give me any." The victim informed appellant that she had some cash in her wallet. Subsequently, appellant brandished a knife, which the victim had not seen before, and began cutting her arm and fingers. These injuries later required stitches.
After cutting the victim, appellant removed her underwear and raped her. At some point during this assault, appellant took off the victim's nightgown, tied it around her throat, and partially strangled her. After appellant completed the sexual assault, he dragged the victim from the bed, took her to the bathroom, and threw her in the bathtub. He turned the bathtub's water faucet on, closed the curtain, and left the house. Appellant did not take any of the victim's valuables, including the $70 in the victim's purse.
After appellant left the house, the victim called the police. Police officers arrived at her residence a short time later. While securing the crime scene, officers discovered that a large stone had been removed from the yard of the residence and had apparently been used to shatter the sliding glass door that led from the screened-in porch into the home. The officers further noted that one of the porch's screens appeared to have been torn or cut. The officers did not recover a knife from the victim's residence.
The victim provided the police with a statement. She indicated that appellant twice attempted to have sexual relations with her. She stated that she did not think appellant was "able to perform" and did not think he ejaculated. The victim was then taken to the hospital where she was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) and treated for her injuries. In addition to the cuts on her arm and fingers, the victim had other cuts and bruises all over her body. She had a large bruise all the way around her neck and blood in her eye which resulted from appellant's attempt to strangle her with her own nightgown. At trial, the SANE testified that the victim had numerous acute injuries to her genitalia, which were consistent with blunt force trauma. The SANE further testified that the injuries to the victim's genitalia were consistent with penetration. Finally, the SANE testified that the victim's injuries were so severe that the examination took twice as long as examinations usually lasted.
Days later, one of the victim's neighbors found the victim's keys and a knife in his backyard. The police retrieved these items, but no fingerprints were recovered from the knife.
The authorities posted fliers throughout the community, requesting assistance with the investigation. Thereafter, the police began to focus on appellant as their primary suspect. They contacted his friends and family and sought public assistance in locating appellant.
Appellant turned himself in to the police department on September 14, 2008. The police handcuffed appellant and transported him to the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation Division. At the headquarters, Investigator J. Russ and Investigator C. Lesesne interrogated appellant. Appellant did not speak English well, so Lesesne translated Russ' questions; however, at several points during the interrogation, Lesesne independently conversed with appellant in Spanish. During these exchanges, Lesesne was not translating for Russ—she asked her own questions in Spanish and did not translate appellant's responses for Russ. This interrogation was recorded, and the DVD recording was played for the jury during appellant's trial.2
At the beginning of the interrogation, Lesesne advised appellant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Appellant told Lesesne that he understood his rights and agreed to waive them, but he refused to sign the acknowledgment form. The investigators then questioned appellant for approximately two hours. At the beginning of the interview, appellant admitted breaking into the victim's house. He claimed he used to live near the victim, he thought the house was empty, and he only wanted money. He admitted that he gained access by breaking a big window with a rock and stated that the victim surprised him when she entered the living area. He told the investigators that he was carrying a knife when he entered the house and that he had obtained the knife from another house.
Appellant also said that he demanded money from the victim. When she said she didn't have any, appellant stated that he got nervous and hit the victim. He further admitted that he held the victim in one hand while holding the knife in the other hand. He stated that he then took the victim to the "back room" because he "supposed that's where her belongings would have been."
Lesesne translated these statements and, after further discussion with appellant in Spanish, said that appellant was willing to tell the "end of the story," since "he's already here."
The questioning then continued with no further mention of an attorney. Appellant claimed that the victim had told him to rape her, and he said that he placed the victim in the bathtub because "he got scared because of all the blood." Appellant denied attempting to strangle the victim and denied knowing how the victim's nightclothes came to be tied around the victim's neck. He admitted he took the victim's keys and said he threw the keys and the knife away.
At the conclusion of the interview, Russ obtained a buccal swab from appellant. Comparison of appellant's DNA with the vaginal swabs from the victim's post-assault medical examination revealed that appellant's DNA...
To continue reading
Request your trial