State v. Davis

Decision Date21 October 2014
Docket NumberNo. COA14–258.,COA14–258.
Citation237 N.C.App. 22,763 S.E.2d 585
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of North Carolina, v. Antoinette Nicole DAVIS.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen N. Bolton, for the State.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Southern Pines, for defendant-appellant.

HUNTER, ROBERT C., Judge.

Antoinette Nicole Davis ("defendant") appeals from judgment entered pursuant to her Alford plea to two counts of felonious child abuse and one count each of second degree murder, human trafficking, conspiracy to commit sexual offense of a child by an adult offender, first degree kidnapping, first degree sexual offense, sexual servitude, and taking indecent liberties with a minor. On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress incriminating statements made to law enforcement personnel during interviews conducted in November 2009. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred by concluding that: (1) defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation during these interviews, and (2) her confession was voluntarily and understandingly made.

After careful review, we affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress.

Background

From 10 November 2009 through 14 November 2009, defendant was interviewed four times by law enforcement personnel at the Fayetteville City Police Department. She went to the police department voluntarily for each of the four interviews, with the stated purpose of helping the officers find her missing five-year-old daughter, S.D.1

A. The First Interview

On 10 November 2009, defendant called 911 to report that S.D. was missing. She went to the police station and spoke with Detective Tracey Bowman ("Detective Bowman"). The first interview began at 8:54 a.m. and lasted approximately six hours and nine minutes. Defendant was left alone in the interview room for long periods of time, with the door closed but unlocked. Detective Bowman told defendant that she was keeping the door closed as a safety precaution because criminal suspects were inside the building. Defendant was allowed to take bathroom and cigarette breaks, but was accompanied by Detective Bowman during each. Detective Bowman explained that a Police Department safety code required that she escort defendant. Defendant was offered beverages several times throughout the interview and was given food to eat.

In the first interview, defendant told Detective Bowman that she did not know what happened to S.D. or who could have taken her. At the time, defendant and S.D. were living in a trailer with defendant's sister, Brenda. Defendant claimed to have put S.D. to sleep in S.D.'s brother's bedroom at around 5:00 a.m. that morning, and that at around 6:00 a.m., S.D.'s brother told defendant that S.D. was no longer in the bed with him. When defendant discovered that no one in the trailer had seen S.D., she searched the front part of her neighborhood then called the police.

Towards the end of the interview, defendant expressed frustration at being at the police station for so long, because she wanted to be out looking for S.D. Detective Bowman told her she could leave if she really wanted to, but defendant declined. Defendant left the station approximately six hours after arriving.

B. The Second Interview

The second interview began at 5:25 p.m. on 11 November 2009 and lasted approximately thirty minutes. During this interview, defendant told Detective Bowman that her boyfriend, Clarance Coe ("Coe"), had taken S.D. She claimed that he hit S.D. twice in the face in the early morning hours of 10 November 2009 after having an intense argument with defendant. Although defendant claimed that she tried to stop him, Coe "took off" in a car with S.D. Defendant told Detective Bowman that she believed S.D. to be somewhere around the Murchison Road area. After taking defendant's statement, Detective Bowman checked to see if there were any new developments in the case. Soon thereafter, defendant left the station.

C. The Third Interview

The third interview began at 8:38 p.m. on 12 November 2009 and lasted approximately forty-six minutes. Detective Bowman initiated the interview by telling defendant that she knew defendant had been lying about what happened to S.D. Detective Bowman yelled and cursed at defendant, repeatedly accusing her of lying. Defendant began to cry. Detective Bowman showed defendant a photograph of S.D. with Mario McNeil, also known as "Mono," and asked defendant what she thought Mono would say when he was caught. Defendant then admitted that she had lied the previous day and that Coe had nothing to do with S.D.'s disappearance. Detective Bowman told defendant that her false statements lead to Coe's arrest and incarceration and that lying to a federal agent is a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

During the interview, Detective Bowman left the room and closed the door as a safety precaution due to other prisoners being in the building. Defendant asked for and received a glass of water, at which time Detective Bowman told defendant that they needed to work together to get S.D. back safely. Defendant told Detective Bowman that Mono had a relationship with defendant's sister, Brenda. Defendant was then allowed to take a bathroom break and was left alone in the interview room. Before defendant left the police station, Detective Bowman told her that she did not know what would happen as a result of defendant's lies, and that "[a]ll we care about right now is finding your daughter." Defendant thanked Detective Bowman and left the police station.

D. The Fourth Interview

The fourth and final interview began at 11:53 a.m. on 14 November 2009 and lasted approximately five hours and thirty minutes. Rather than speaking with Detective Bowman, defendant was interviewed by Detective Carolyn Pollard ("Detective Pollard") and Sergeant Chris Corcione ("Sgt. Corcione"). Defendant was seated in the back corner of the interview room, with Detective Pollard and Sgt. Corcione between her chair and the door. After approximately two hours of discussing defendant's personal background, defendant indicated that her stomach hurt. She told the officers that she was pregnant. Detective Pollard suggested that defendant go to the Health Department for an examination, but defendant refused and said "[m]y next step is to finish trying to find my daughter."

Defendant then began recounting the events surrounding S.D.'s disappearance. She awoke on the morning of 10 November 2009 to find S.D. gone. Defendant asked her sister's boyfriend if anyone had been in the house, and he replied "Mono." However, defendant claimed that she did not see or hear anyone in the house and reiterated that she had nothing to do with S.D.'s disappearance. Defendant admitted to Detective Pollard and Sgt. Corcione that she lied in previous interviews and "put it all on [Coe]." However, defendant said that she lied because Detective Bowman scared her and "tried to make her know something she didn't know." Detective Pollard asked defendant if she was scaring her, and defendant said that she was not. Defendant then said that she wanted to tell the truth after she learned that Coe had been arrested because of her previous lies.

Sgt. Corcione told defendant that he wanted her to tell the truth, because Mono was in jail and had already informed the police that defendant knew what happened to S.D. The officers told defendant that they already knew what happened but that they needed to hear it from her; they repeatedly asked defendant to stay on the "right track" by telling the truth. Defendant told the officers that Mono came to the trailer because he wanted to have sex with her. Sgt. Corcione advised defendant to stay on the right track, and said that no matter what she said she would "walk out of here."

Eventually, defendant said that she owed Mono $200.00, and that he wanted either the money that was owed or sex to repay the debt. Sgt. Corcione told defendant that Mono was going to tell the truth to save himself, so she needed to be entirely truthful about what happened next. He told defendant "I got to hear it from you so we can put that monster away." Defendant emotionally confessed to the officers that Mono took S.D. to a motel room with defendant's consent with the understanding that "[a]ll he was supposed to do was have sex with her." She said that this arrangement would settle her $200.00 debt. Defendant then claimed that the plan was for Mono to take S.D. to a motel for another individual to have sex with her, but she did not know whom the third party was. After giving these statements to the officers, defendant requested and was allowed to take a cigarette break.

When she returned, defendant was asked for details regarding the arrangement she had with Mono. Defendant denied knowing the specifics of Mono's plan for S.D. Defendant was then left in the interview room alone. She asked Sgt. Corcione how much longer she was going to be there, to which he responded "[n]ot too much longer." Defendant took another bathroom and cigarette break and asked Detective Pollard to join her outside. After returning, defendant took one more bathroom break, then was left alone in the interview room for approximately thirty minutes. Detective Bowman then entered the room and advised defendant that she was under arrest and was no longer free to leave.

On 16 November 2009, S.D.'s body was found on the side of Walker Road outside of Fayetteville. Medical examiners concluded that S.D.'s cause of death was asphyxiation

. Blood was found on anal and vaginal swabs, indicating sexual trauma.

Defendant was charged with human trafficking, felonious child abuse, felony conspiracy, first degree kidnapping, first degree murder, rape of a child by an adult offender, sexual servitude, and taking indecent liberties with a child. She filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements made to Detective Pollard and Sgt. Corcione during...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Killette
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 5 Noviembre 2019
    ...to show good or sufficient cause").In his petition for writ of certiorari, Defendant asserts the applicability of State v. Davis, 237 N.C. App. 22, 763 S.E.2d 585, (2014). The opinion in Davis , with no analysis and without citing or addressing prior binding authority in Tew or Pimental, ci......
  • State v. Palacio
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 Febrero 2023
    ... ... Boyd , ... 207 N.C.App. 632, 636, 701 S.E.2d 255, 258 (2010) (quotation ... marks and citation omitted). "Unchallenged findings of ... fact are deemed supported by competent evidence and are ... binding on appeal." State v. Davis , 237 ... N.C.App. 22, 27-28, 763 S.E.2d 585, 589 (2014) (citation ... omitted). "The trial court's conclusions of law, ... however, are fully reviewable on appeal." State v ... Hughes , 353 N.C. 200, 208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2000) ...          The ... ...
  • State v. Killette
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2022
    ...under Tew , Pimental , and Harris . See id. at 257, 834 S.E.2d 696 ("Under well-settled precedents, we disregard [ State v. ] Davis [237 N.C. App. 22, 763 S.E.2d 585 (2014) ] and follow Tew , Pimental , and State v. Harris as the earlier, binding precedents.").¶ 11 The court seemed to brief......
  • In re L.R.S.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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