State v. David
| Decision Date | 10 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-KA-0150,82-KA-0150 |
| Citation | 425 So.2d 1241 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Elliot Joseph DAVID. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Morel, Jr., Dist. Atty., Don Almerico, Harry Morgan and Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
G. Walton Caire, Edgard, Richard J. Holmes, LaPlace, for defendant-appellant.
On March 31, 1981, the defendant and his wife entered a Paradis, Louisiana lounge. Over a period of about an hour, the defendant consumed some liquor and some beer. However, he did not appear to be intoxicated. After all but one of the customers had left for the evening, the defendant produced a .25 caliber pistol and demanded valuables from the customer, the bartender and a barmaid. When the defendant asked the customer whether he recognized him and received a muffled response, he placed the gun to the customer's head and pulled the trigger. The weapon at first misfired, but the defendant pulled the trigger again, firing a fatal shot into the customer's head from a distance of about two inches. After a brief scuffle with the bartender, the defendant fled with his wife, leaving behind some personal property, including an address book which the police used to track him down. He was arrested at his residence after being forced from the premises by tear gas. On the morning of his arrest, the defendant made oral and written statements in which he confessed to the robbery and the shooting.
The defendant was convicted of first degree murder by a jury which recommended a penalty of death. Defendant appealed filing eleven assignments of error. None of the assignments relating to the guilt phase of the proceedings has reversible merit. During the penalty hearing, however, the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury as to its duty in deciding whether to recommend the death penalty or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Consequently, we will affirm the defendant's conviction, but we are required to grant the defendant a new penalty hearing.
By this assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it ruled that the defendant was able to understand his actions on the date he committed the charged offense. In essence, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove his sanity at the time of the instant offense.
A sanity commission of two psychiatrists examined the defendant on April 23, 1981. In their written report, both doctors concluded that the defendant was sane when he committed the offense and that he was able to appreciate the usual, natural, and probable consequences of his acts, and that he was not suffering from any psychological defect or disease. The defendant presented no evidence or testimony regarding his sanity.
The trial court ruled that the defendant was able to distinguish right from wrong and to appreciate the natural consequences of his acts. The trial judge further found that the defendant was able to participate effectively in his defense and to assist his attorneys. Therefore, the court found the defendant able to stand trial.
At the trial, the two members of the sanity commission testified and confirmed their views that the defendant was sane on the date of the instant offense. A third psychiatrist, called by the defense, testified that the defendant understood right from wrong on the date of the murder. The jury rejected the insanity defense and rendered a verdict of guilty.
In Louisiana, an adult defendant is presumed to be sane and responsible for his actions. La.R.S. 15:432. However, a defendant may rebut this presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was suffering from a mental disease or defect which rendered him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with reference to the conduct in question. State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664, 665-66 (La.1981); C.Cr.P. art. 652; La.R.S. 14:14. See, Note, The Insanity Defense in Louisiana: Presumptions, Burden of Proof and Appellate Review, 42 La.L.Rev. 1166 (1982). A reviewing court will reverse the trial judge's ruling that the defendant is sane only when it finds "under the facts and circumstances of the case, that a rational fact finder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not have concluded that the defendant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense." State v. Roy, supra.
In the present case, the defendant presented no evidence of his alleged insanity at the sanity hearing. At trial, his own expert witness testified that the defendant understood right from wrong on the date of the offense. On the other hand, the two examining psychiatrists of the sanity commission reported and testified that the defendant was able to appreciate the consequences of his acts and to distinguish right from wrong at the time of his offense. Both of these doctors also testified that the defendant suffered from no psychological defect or disease.
Given these circumstances, the jury did not err in its rejection of the "not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict because the defendant failed to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Roy, supra.
Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
By this assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his confession. He argues that his confession was not free and voluntary because it was made while the defendant was in an abnormal physical and mental state produced by alcohol and Valium tablets, a lack of sleep, and tear gas used by the police to force him from his home. He asserts that his waiver of counsel was invalid because it was induced by the police playing on his concern for his wife's well being and because the waiver was made without an officer ever asking the defendant directly if he wanted a lawyer.
The defendant was arrested at his residence at 2:52 a.m. on March 27, 1981 by members of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office. He was orally advised of his constitutional rights immediately after his arrest. The defendant was then transported to the detective bureau where he was again advised of his rights. Before he gave a formal statement, the defendant was advised of his rights for a third time. Thereafter, the defendant admitted to the robbery and the shooting, and he signed a written version of his oral confession.
During these events the defendant, although smelling of alcohol, did not appear to be intoxicated or impaired in any way. He seemed literate and conversed with the detectives without difficulty. He was given cigarettes and coffee during his questioning and was allowed to make several phone calls, including at least three to his wife.
The general rule is that, on the trial of a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the grounds of his motion. La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). One exception to the rule is that the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the voluntariness of a confession which the defendant has moved to suppress as evidence at the trial on the merits. La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); La.R.S. 15:451; State v. Napier 385 So.2d 776 (La.1980); State v. Jones, 376 So.2d 125 (La.1979); State v. Volk, 369 So.2d 128 (La.1979); State v. Bouffanie, 364 So.2d 971 (La.1978); State v. Johnson, 363 So.2d 684 (La.1978). State v. Glover 343 So.2d 118 (La.1977). In reviewing the trial judge's ruling as to the admissibility of a confession, his conclusions on credibility are entitled to the respect due those made by one who saw the witnesses and heard them testify. State v. Bouffanie, supra.
Applying these precepts, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it found the confession to have been voluntary. The defendant appeared to have been drinking and claimed to have taken Valium tablets prior to his confession. However, during the period of questioning, the defendant was coherent and he responded to the questioning without impairment. Witnesses to defendant's demeanor and behavior before the shooting said that he appeared to have been sober and coherent. The confession reads as a series of rational responses to the interrogating officers' questions. Moreover, the interrogation setting appears to have been free of coercion. The defendant was seated without handcuffs at an officer's desk while questioned. His requests for a telephone, cigarettes and coffee were met several times.
The record supports rejection of the defendant's claims that he was not asked if he wanted an attorney and that the police officers played on his concerns for his wife to induce a waiver of his rights. The defendant was advised of his right to have an attorney present by three separate readings of his Miranda warnings. He signed a written waiver of this right prior to giving any statement. The assertion that the defendant feared for his wife's well being is not supported by the evidence. The defendant was allowed to phone his wife at least three times during his questioning. Moreover, the interrogating officers' testimony does not indicate they had any discussion with the defendant about his wife except perhaps in connection with their granting him permission to call her on the telephone.
Under the circumstances, the trial judge did not err in concluding that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights and voluntarily confessed to the crime.
Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to order a venue change pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 621 et seq. In rejecting the motion for change of venue, the trial court apparently found that the defendant failed to carry his burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State, DP-60
...to the jury's recommendation of the death penalty. State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); see State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); see also State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 Mississippi is not alone in recognizing that......
-
State v. Griffin
...whether the accused received a trial which was free and unfettered by outside influences. State v. Henderson, supra; State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983), cert. denied after remand 476 U.S. 1130, 106 S.Ct. 1998, 90 L.Ed.2d 678 In the instant case, the defendant offered in support of its......
-
State v. Lee
...the testimony of witnesses at the trial. In unusual circumstances, prejudice against the defendant may be presumed. See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241, 1246 (La.1983) ("[U]nfairness of a constitutional magnitude will be presumed in the presence of a trial atmosphere which is utterly corrupt......
-
State v. Holliday
...976 So.2d 109, 133 (internal citation omitted). Only rarely will prejudice against a defendant be presumed. See State v. David , 425 So.2d 1241, 1246 (La. 1983) ("[U]nfairness of a constitutional magnitude will be presumed in the presence of a trial atmosphere which is utterly corrupted by ......