State v. Flower
| Decision Date | 30 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-87-0072-AP,CR-87-0072-AP |
| Citation | 778 P.2d 1179,161 Ariz. 283 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Raymond FLOWER, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Jessica Gifford Funkhouser, Phoenix, and Eric J. Olsson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.
Harold L. Higgins, Jr., Pima County Public Defender by Donald Klein, Rebecca A. McLean and Frank P. Leto, Deputy Pima County Public Defenders, Tucson, for appellant.
Raymond Flower was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery, with prior convictions and a finding that the offenses were committed while he was on parole. The court sentenced Flower to consecutive life sentences. Flower appeals from these convictions and sentences. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4031.
Flower raises the following issues on appeal:
1. The court's admission of portions of Flower's statement made to Detective Lowe violated Flower's fifth amendment right against self-incrimination because his right to silence was not honored and because the prosecutor did not disclose his intent to use the statement until after the trial had begun.
2. The court's admission of Lacy Riddell's taped statement made to Detective Lowe incriminating Flower denied him a fair trial because Riddell's statement was inherently unreliable.
3. The court's failure to give a sua sponte instruction on lesser-included offenses denied Flower a fair trial.
The victim, Tom Daniels, a 75-year-old caucasian, was nicknamed the "Car Wash Man" because he was the maintenance man at the car wash located next to his house and he also made change in quarters for the customers. On March 29, 1986, the day he was killed, he was last seen walking toward his house at about 4:30 p.m. A neighbor discovered his body at about 6:30 p.m. on his bedroom floor and found water running in the kitchen sink. The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was from multiple stab wounds that penetrated his heart and left lung. Prior to his death, he was also severely beaten on the head, and there were stab wounds and bruises on his arms, legs and head, including some defensive injuries. The medical examiner determined the time of death as sometime between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that day.
Samples of blood, observed throughout the victim's house, were taken from the hallway, bathroom, bedroom, kitchen and sidewalk. Admitted pursuant to stipulation, the analysis of these blood samples revealed one of the following results: 1) inconclusive, 2) consistent with the blood of the victim, or 3) the blood could not have come from Flower, whose blood type is different than that of the victim. Human hairs were also discovered on the victim's hand and on his shirt. None of the hairs collected by the medical examiner exhibited Negroid hair characteristics. Flower is a black man. A single black hair was found on the victim's hand. Brown caucasian head hairs were also found, unlike the victim's head hair. The white and gray hairs found on the victim could not be microscopically analyzed because they have no pigment. However, samples of gray or white hairs taken from both the victim and Flower did not match these samples. Tissue scrapings were removed from underneath the victim's fingernails which could not be analyzed. Of the items dusted for fingerprints, only one print could be lifted; it was found not to have been made by either the victim or Flower. The murder weapon was never recovered. Flower's clothes and shoes were examined for blood. The results of that examination were not introduced at trial.
There was no testimony placing Flower at the victim's house near the time of the murder. One witness, Lloyd Lee Gainous, testified that he gave Flower a ride home from the Ponderosa bar the afternoon of the murder. The bar is located near the victim's house. Gainous also testified that while walking to the car with Flower he noticed that Flower's hand looked "nasty," as if it had dye on it. Flower had explained to Gainous that he had had a fight with his "old lady." Gainous also testified that as they were leaving the parking lot, his car ran over something. Flower said, Flower got the rifle, they left, went to one house where Flower knocked and got no response, then went on to a boarding house, where Flower sold the rifle to Ed Maxwell.
Lacy Riddell, an acquaintance of Flower's, gave a taped statement to Detective Perry Lowe eight days after the murder, following Riddell's arrest for burglary, sexual assault and aggravated assault of a 97-year-old woman. Detective Lowe made it clear at the beginning of the interview, in response to Riddell's immediate request for a lawyer, that he was not there to make any deals, that the other police officer on Riddell's case did not want to deal, and that Detective Lowe did not know if Riddell was going to do him any good or not. Detective Lowe stated: Riddell immediately gave Detective Lowe a specific statement concerning the murder, implicating Flower as the sole participant.
Following Riddell's statement, Lowe searched Riddell's boarding house room and that of Ed Maxwell, where he seized a .22 rifle. In Riddell's room, he seized a baseball cap, a stain on which was analyzed and found to be perspiration from a person with type B blood who is also a secretor. Flower is a type B secretor. Lacy Riddell is a type O non-secretor. Flower was connected to the rifle and the cap through information provided by Riddell.
Riddell's statement to Detective Lowe was critical to the state's case. It is only through Riddell's taped statement, which was read to the jury, that Flower was connected directly to the murder. Riddell told Detective Lowe that Flower came to him a week after the murder carrying eight dollars in quarters, threw them on the bed, and told Riddell how he had sold the victim a rifle, then returned to the victim's house, telling him he had two more pistols so that the victim would go get some money. According to Riddell, when the victim came back without any money, the two fought, and Flower killed him. Riddell took the stand at trial but refused to testify concerning the statement, claiming his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The entire taped statement was played for the jury. In addition, a portion of Flower's statement to Detective Lowe was read to the jury, where Flower admitted he was at the bar having a fight with his girlfriend at about 6:00 p.m. on the night of the murder.
Flower was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery, both of a dangerous and repetitive nature, with a true finding as to the existence of prior convictions and that the offenses occurred while he was on parole. Following a presentence hearing, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Flower intended to kill the victim and that he had been previously convicted of a felony in the United States involving the use or threat of violence on another person. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2). In mitigation, the court found that Flower had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, that there was evidence at the trial that the killing occurred in the heat of an argument, and that the state acknowledged that this was not necessarily a proper case for imposition of the death penalty. Therefore, the court could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and concluded that the death penalty was not appropriate. Flower was sentenced to consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole for 25 years.
The following statement made by Flower to Detective Lowe was read to the jury and admitted into evidence, over Flower's objections. The statement was made in response to a question by Detective Lowe, Flower said, "Who?" and Detective Lowe responded:
Q LLOYD LEE
A Yeah, I told him what happened. I got in a fight with a chick out there.
Q OK, who were you fighting with?
A This girl from Phoenix, a prostitute.
Q What's her name?
A I don't know, man, they use so many names.
Q Where did you get in a fight with her?
A Right there in the parking lot.
Q In the parking lot of the Ponderosa?
A Yeah.
Q OK, what day was that?
A I think it was on a Friday or Saturday.
Q Saturday.
A Yeah, it could've been a Saturday.
Q What time did you get in a fight with her?
A Six in the evening, I don't have a watch, I can't tell the time.
Q About six in the evening?
A It was in the evening, I don't know exactly what time it was.
* * * * * *
Q What was her name?
A I know she was from Phoenix, man, you know, girls go by SHELLY(PH) different names, I don't know if that was her name.
Q OK. What did she look like?
A 5-5, brown skin complexion.
Q OK..
A I'm being charged with something, I have an attorney cause I ain't did nothing, man, this is awfully serious. You know you accuse me of killing some guy I don't know about, you know. I haven't killed anyone, them are serious charges.
Q Yeah they are serious charges.
A Yes, they are. I haven't did anything. Maybe mistaken identity or something. I ain't killed nobody. No one have I killed.
Q Well ...
A What I want to kill somebody for?
Flower first argues that the statement was inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He contends that his silence following Lowe's recitation of the Miranda warnings at the arrest scene was an exercise of his right to silence and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boggs
...intended to invoke his right to silence." State v. Finehout, 136 Ariz. 226, 229, 665 P.2d 570, 573 (1983); see State v. Flower, 161 Ariz. 283, 287, 778 P.2d 1179, 1183 (1989) ("[B]y failing to at least clarify [the defendant's] intent, [the detective] did not `scrupulously honor' [the defen......
-
State v. Huerstel, CR-01-0103-AP.
...we consider only the evidence presented at the voluntariness hearing and nothing presented at trial. State v. Flower, 161 Ariz. 283, 286 n. 1, 778 P.2d 1179, 1182 n. 1 (1989). ¶ 63 Finally, Huerstel challenges the admissibility of his confession to Acorn on the ground that having Huerstel b......
-
State v. Newell
...at the suppression hearing. State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 284, 908 P.2d 1062, 1069 (1996) (citing State v. Flower, 161 Ariz. 283, 286 n. 1, 778 P.2d 1179, 1182 n. 1 (1989)). B ¶ 23 Newell claims that his statements must be suppressed because the did not honor his requests for the presence......
-
State v. Boggs
...intended to invoke his right to silence." State v. Finehout, 136 Ariz. 226, 229, 665 P.2d 570, 573 (1983); see State v. Flower, 161 Ariz. 283, 287, 778 P.2d 1179, 1183 (1989) ("[B]y failing to at least clarify [the defendant's] intent, [the detective] did not `scrupulously honor' [the defen......