State v. Istre
| Decision Date | 16 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-KA-0943,81-KA-0943 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Wallace ISTRE. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Jack D. Miller, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Timothy Jones, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
*
Defendant, Wallace Istre, was charged by indictment with the crime of aggravated rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42. After defendant pled not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity, he was tried on September 19, 1980 before a twelve person jury which found him guilty as charged. Thereafter, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals on the basis of four assignments of error which revolve around the admissibility of defendant's inculpatory statement made while in custody.
FACTS:
Defendant, a 19-year-old borderline retardate, was arrested on April 18, 1980 for aggravated rape of his three year old niece. On this date, the victim's mother had left her at home with her uncles as babysitters for the day. Some time during the morning a neighbor, hearing the child crying outside, found her bleeding from the vagina. The neighbor brought the child to the hospital where she was examined and treated. The defendant was subsequently picked up and questioned concerning the child's injuries. His confession, given at this questioning, resulted in his arrest and conviction.
The three-year-old victim did not testify at trial. Apart from medical testimony relating to her injuries, defendant's custodial confession thus formed the heart of the state's case against him.
The confession was taken subsequent to the defendant's arrest, and conducted by Detective Louis Robbins and Police Officer Walter Harrington of the Acadia Parish Sheriff's Department in the presence of the defendant's sister-in-law, Betty Istre. The defendant gave a confession at this interrogation which was the subject of a motion to suppress on August 29, 1980. The defendant objects to the denial of this motion on the grounds that there was insufficient explanation of his rights and the consequences of their waiver which vitiated a knowing and intelligent waiver. Defendant also objects to the introduction of the confession on the grounds that as an arrestee in a custodial interrogation it was made out of fear and duress produced by the interrogating officer's statement.
This argument relates to the defendant's capacity to waive his constitutionally guaranteed rights as set forth in the Miranda decision. As a borderline retardate the state must show that he understood the rights being read to him and that he could appreciate the possible consequences of waiving those rights. State v. Anderson, 379 So.2d 735 (La.1980).
In support of his arguments, defendant relies on trial testimony of Dr. H. P. Wyatt, Detective Louis Robbins, Officer Walter Harrington, Betty Istre, and Wallace Istre. **
Dr. Wyatt was a court-appointed clinical psychiatrist who examined the defendant whom he classified as a borderline retardate with a verbal I.Q. of 68 and a performance level of 71. The defendant relied on Dr. Wyatt's testimony that due to defendant's mental retardation, the stress inherent in a custodial interrogation situation would compound his inability to cope and understand the nature and consequences of that type of proceeding. He indicated that defendant could understand technical words in a situation where, such as his examination, he took the time to stop and discuss whatever the defendant did not understand. This testimony was used to support the defendant's position that he could not understand the rights read to him under the stress of a custodial interrogation where additional time and explanations were not available.
Detective Robbins testified that he was aware of the defendant's mental incapacity and asked the defendant's sister-in-law, Betty Istre, to attend the interrogation. The waiver of rights form was read, without explanation or review, in approximately five minutes. The only responses made by the defendant were noddings of his head. Neither the defendant, nor Betty Istre, read the waiver form. Officer Robbins hand wrote the voluntary statement in response to questions given defendant which was completed in ten minutes. Robbins recalled that the defendant did not speak until he was informed that he did not have to talk if he did not want, but he would just be taken upstairs and booked. The record reflects that Robbins said:
A. I asked, first I filled out the date, then I filled out the place, then I put down the time and then his name, which I knew, on this form, and then when I got to his age, I asked him how old he was, and he didn't say anything. So, I looked up at him and said, 'Wallace, how old are you?' He didn't say anything. I said, 'what is your date of birth?' and he still didn't say anything. So, I said, 'now, Wallace, I read you your rights, if you don't want to give a statement, that's fine', I said, 'that's your right', and I said 'I'll just take you up to the jail and book you which is what we do when people don't want to talk.' And that's when Mrs. Istre jumped in and she said 'you don't understand, he doesn't know his age' and this and that, so, she gave me a little bit of information.
The testimony of Officer Harrington and Betty Istre supported that of Robbins.
Counsel argues that, considering the medical and factual testimony herein, there is substantial doubt as to defendant's knowingly and intelligently waiving his rights to make the confession. Counsel contends that defendant's mental incapacities combined with the stressful situation of the custodial interrogation made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights impossible.
This Court has addressed the issue of a mentally retarded person waiving his constitutional rights in State v. Anderson, supra, at 736 when it said:
(1) We have held that moderate mental retardation and low intelligence or illiteracy do not of themselves vitiate the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive constitutional rights and make a free and voluntary confession. State v. Collins, 370 So.2d 533 (La.1979); State v. Neal, 321 So.2d 497 (La.1975); State v. Nicholas, 319 So.2d 361 (La.1975); State v. Edwards, 257 La. 707, 243 So.2d 806 (1971). The critical factor in all such cases is whether or not the defendant was able to understand the rights being explained to him.
The defense relies heavily on Anderson, supra, in brief as a case on point since the facts are similar to the case at bar. In Anderson, the defendant was a mentally retarded 17-year-old with an I.Q. between 50 and 69. He had the mental age of an eight-year-old, and although he was educable, he could not read but only print his name. The testimony of the police officers who took Anderson's statement was ambiguous as to whether the defendant understood the rights which they attempted to explain to him. This Court ruled that Anderson did not understand his rights and did not appreciate the possible consequences thereof, and thus was incapable of knowingly and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights. The confession was suppressed.
The defense distinguishes this case and Anderson, supra, from one of the leading cases on mental capacity to waive rights, State v. Collins, 370 So.2d 533 (La.1979). In Collins, the defendant was a 24-year-old, had an I.Q. of 68, he earned a living and supported a wife and two children, he had been subjected to interrogation before when his rights were explained to him extensively. In Collins, two psychiatrists testified that defendant had the ability to understand if his rights were explained.
Here, there is ample testimony herein to support the trial judges' holding that the defendant was mentally capable of waiving his rights at the time of interrogation.
At the sanity hearing Doctor Wyatt and Doctor Mc Manus testified that the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. Dr. Wyatt during the trial was specifically shown the waiver of rights form (S-1) and written statement form (S-2) and asked whether the defendant could understand what was on them. His reply is as follows:
A. Yes, I've seen this.
Q. Can Wallace Istre or could he understand what is on that document?
A. Yes sir, I think he could.
Q. That's not the legal testimony that you were talking about, is it?
A. No, these are rather short sentences.
Q. In fact, it says you have the right to remain silent, he can understand that?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And anything you say can be used against you in Court?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That's a lot better than saying you have a right or privilege against self-incrimination, that's what you were talking about, isn't it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. This form is fine, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now let me show you document marked and introduced as S2. You are familiar with that document, too I believe.
(Thereupon the witness reviews the document)
A. Yes sir, I've seen this.
Q. And would the same go with S2 as it did with S1, this would be a document that, that the defendant could understand?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now the words that are written in on the statement portion of the exhibit, are those words consistent with the, with the verbalizing that the defendant could do or is capable of doing? In other words, can he make those statements, words like that?
A. Yes. I think this is in keeping with his vocabulary.
Q. That's more in line with his vocabulary that that of Detective Robbins, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Dr. Wyatt also testified at trial that the defendant was capable of marriage, raising a family and paying his bills.
The state has the burden to prove that defendant's mental defect did not preclude him from giving a voluntary and free confession with a knowledgeable and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...rights, police officers testified defendant understood his rights in part because of his prior criminal history); State v. Istre, 407 So.2d 1183, 1186-87 (La.1981) (19-year-old who had IQ of 68 and who did not know his own age intelligently waived rights, which were explained in simplistic ......
-
State v. Blank
...Miranda warnings and informed defendant that he could refuse the polygraph before he submitted to the examination. Cf. State v. Istre, 407 So.2d 1183, 1187 (La. 1981) (reh'g denied) (officer telling defendant that he would be taken upstairs and booked if he did not want to talk did not rend......
-
State v. Chester
...be made to understand, and officers testified he understood, at least partially because of his criminal history); compareState v. Istre , 407 So.2d 1183, 1186-87 (La. 1981) (19-year-old with IQ of 68 who did not know his own age intelligently waived his rights, which were explained in simpl......
-
State v. Tucker
...rights, police officers testified defendant understood his rights in part because of his prior criminal history); State v. Istre, 407 So.2d 1183, 1186–87 (La.1981 ) (19–year–old who had I.Q. of 68 and who did not know his own age intelligently waived rights, which were explained in simplist......