State v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 25 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2009–KA–1578.,2009–KA–1578.
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Michael GARCIA.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

108 So.3d 1

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Michael GARCIA.

No. 2009–KA–1578.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 2012.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 2013.

[108 So.3d 4]

Capital Appeals Project, William Martin Sothern, Michael Admirand, Bidish J. Sarma, for Appellant.

[108 So.3d 5]

James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Richard J. Ward, Jr., District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Engolio, Antonio Marcell Clayton, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.

KNOLL, Justice.

[2009-1578 (La. 1]On February 24, 2006, a West Baton Rouge Parish grand jury indicted defendant, Michael Garcia, for the February 8, 2006, first-degree murder of Matthew Millican (“Matt”), a violation of La.Rev.Stat. § 14:30. ¹ During his arraignment on March 3, 2006, defendant entered a plea of not guilty.² Defendant's jury trial commenced on June 4, 2008. During trial on the merits, the presentation of the State's case unfolded in a chronological fashion with five witnesses testifying to other unadjudicated crimes, including threats, aggravated battery, rape, and murder perpetrated by defendant while armed with a machete against victims in Michigan and Florida, followed by four witnesses who had exclusive knowledge of Matt's murder. Thereafter, the defense called four guilt phase witnesses and then rested, concluding the presentation of evidence on June 6, 2008. After hearing closing arguments, receiving the District Court's [2009-1578 (La. 2]instructions, and deliberating defendant's guilt for eleven minutes, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of first-degree murder.

Trial on the penalty phase began on June 7, 2008. Following the presentation of evidence, the jury unanimously returned a verdict of death, finding the offense was committed (1) while defendant was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an armed robbery,³ and (2) while defendant was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an aggravated kidnapping.⁴ The District Court denied defendant's motion for new trial on July 7, 2008, and sentenced defendant to death in accordance with the jury's verdict on July 8, 2008.

Under La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), defendant directly appeals his conviction and death sentence, raising eighty-five assignments of error. We will address the most significant errors in this opinion, and the remaining errors will be addressed in an unpublished appendix. After a thorough review of the law and the evidence, we affirm defendant's first-degree murder conviction and the imposition of the death sentence for the following reasons.

[108 So.3d 6]

FACTS ⁵

The facts of the tragic and heinous offenses committed by the defendant and his “lieutenants” are violent and disturbing. Within a world of transients, drifters, [2009-1578 (La. 3]carnival workers, vagabonds, drunks, and drug abusers, Matt ⁶ lived a traveler's lifestyle, a voluntarily homeless existence, which took him throughout the United States. Early in February 2006, this traveler returned to West Baton Rouge Parish, where he had been reared, in anticipation of marrying his fiancée and traveling companion, M.T.⁷ Even though Matt's family lived nearby, the couple, with their four-month-old pitbull-mix puppy, chose to stay outdoors and slept in an abandoned Texaco station near the south end of Louisiana Highway 415. There, they met and befriended a fellow drifter known to them as “Hollywood.” ⁸

On the afternoon of February 7th, while M.T. and Matt were out panhandling at the nearby Wal–Mart, Hollywood saw three men walking past the abandoned gas station and invited them in for a drink. Defendant, his brother, Danil Garcia, and their friend, James Nelson, II, (also known as “Fatboy”),⁹ had been heading west from Florida and were also sleeping outside since the stolen motor home they were driving broke down. M.T. and Matt first encountered the trio when they returned to the abandoned Texaco station that evening and joined the group for drinks. Afterwards, M.T. and Matt moved their mattresses over [2009-1578 (La. 4]behind the Super 8 Motel next door.¹⁰ Around 9:45 that evening, M.T. went to Arby's to buy sandwiches for the couple's dinner. Once they had finished eating, Hollywood approached the couple and asked if he could sleep back there with them. They agreed and made a bed for him next to the couple's mattress. The three of them then prepared to go to sleep by turning on their radio and covering themselves with blankets.

Later, during the early morning hours, defendant told his brother and Nelson, both of whom defendant referred to as his lieutenants,¹¹ that he wanted to rob the

[108 So.3d 7]

couple.¹² Armed with knives and machetes, the three strangers “ripped” the covers off of Matt and M.T., waking the couple to the sight of three men standing over them with blades drawn.¹³ Holding his blade to Matt's throat,¹⁴ defendant first warned the couple “to be quiet” and to “keep the dog quiet” as well, and then walked Matt farther down the wall of the Super 8 Motel, where he demanded Matt give him all his money. After taking $20 from Matt, defendant returned to M.T., asking “where's the money?” In response, she gave him all the money in her pockets, $10 all in ones, and was then forced to join Matt on the wall. [2009-1578 (La. 5]All the while, the trio was careful not to disturb Hollywood, who was passed out about six to eight feet away.¹⁵

Next, after blindfolding the couple with the pillowcases they had been sleeping on, the trio, with defendant leading Matt and Nelson leading M.T., marched their victims deep into the woods. On this terrorizing trek, the silence was broken by the couple's pleas for mercy and the “swooshing” of Danil's machete swiping against bushes and branches.¹⁶ When defendant asked the couple, “Do you know what that sound is?” Matt answered, “it's the sound of a big knife cutting things. And [defendant]'s like, ‘that's right, and [I'm] not afraid to use it.’ ” Periodically, the men would also remove the blindfolds, shine their flashlights in their victims' faces, always with their machetes in clear view, and ask them if they knew where they were; they also kept “stopping and turning around,” all in an attempt to intimidate and disorient the couple.

Upon arriving at the scene of the subsequent battery and assault, the three men tied Matt and M.T. to a tree, using Matt's bootlaces as ligatures. All the while, defendant kept up a rambling diatribe, questioning the couple, “you don't know whether you're going to live or die, do you?” and stating “he wanted everybody to know that they weren't a joke.” When the puppy started crying, defendant threatened to kill the dog and make Matt drink her blood, but eventually M.T. was untied to hold the puppy and keep her quiet.

Again using Matt's bootlace, defendant next hog-tied Matt's neck to his wrists, which were already bound together behind his back, and then asked, “Well, [2009-1578 (La. 6]what do you think we should do with you guys?” Matt responded, “Well, hopefully, you can just tie us up out here together and go on your way.” ¹⁷ Standing Matt up, defendant then began tormenting him, asking him “do you have heart?” Matt replied, “I try to.” At this point, defendant punched him in the stomach and asked Matt again

[108 So.3d 8]

did he have heart. When Matt responded, “I don't know what you mean,” defendant stated, “I think you are being smart with me,” and started hitting and kicking Matt, who at some point fell to the ground. Defendant then pummeled Matt in the face with his fists. Picking up a log, defendant dropped it on Matt's head twice, causing his body to flop over, and asked M.T.: “Do you think I'm f–––ing joking?” She responded, “No, no.” The men also hit Matt in the head with the beer bottles from which they had been drinking.

The focus of the assault then turned to M.T. when the trio stood her up by a tree and defendant hit her in her “crotch,” asking “when was the last time that's been hit?” When M.T. replied, “the night before,” defendant quipped, “Do you know when the next time is ... take a wild guess ... in about two minutes.” The three men then pulled M.T.'s shirt off and shoved her bra down. Nelson and Danil began “sucking on [her] nipples,” but defendant ordered them to bring her over in front of where they had tied Matt to the tree so “he can see.” Matt was laying face down on the ground at this point, so they propped his head up. Defendant then ordered M.T. to tell Matt that he was “not to move or do anything stupid and that he had to watch.” Matt reassured her: “Okay, Baby, I love you.”

The men then made her take off the rest of her clothes. First, Danil forced her to “suck his d–––.” When Danil did not achieve orgasm, defendant became angry, hitting Danil “on the back with the back of the machete.” Danil got mad [2009-1578 (La. 7]then, saying “screw this” and putting his pants on. An argument ensued between the brothers, ending with defendant ordering Danil: “Go finish your business.” Danil then returned to M.T.'s mouth until he ejaculated. Next, defendant demanded oral sex, and at the same time, Nelson raped M.T. vaginally and anally. Defendant then ordered M.T. to “turn around and give [Nelson] head.” While she was performing oral sex on Nelson, defendant raped her vaginally and anally. As a result of defendant's “f–––ing her up the ass,” M.T. defecated on his penis, and in an act of utter degradation, defendant forced her to clean her own fecal matter off his penis with her mouth and then ejaculated therein.¹⁸ Unquestionably “under threat and intimidation,” M.T. did what the men asked because “they said they were going to kill us,” “[t]hey all had knives and they kept threatening [the couple and her puppy],” but most specifically she “was doing it so that they wouldn't hurt Matt.” Basically, “[she] let them dog [her] out in hopes that [she] would save his life.” ¹⁹

Throughout the assault, Matt renewed his pleas for mercy, and at some point during the ongoing rape, Matt even “tried to do something,”...