State v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 07 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CR83-467,CR83-467 |
| Citation | 447 So.2d 1159 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, v. Ruby A. PALMER and Gordon L. Bradford, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Robert Godwin, Bertrand DeBlanc, Sr., J.M. Wooderson, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty. and Carrol Spell, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DOMENGEAUX, GUIDRY and STOKER, JJ.
Co-defendants Gordon L. Bradford and Ruby Ann Palmer were charged by bill of information on February 10, 1982, with attempted first degree murder of Paul Moores, in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 30; and by amended bill of information on March 1, 1982, with attempted armed robbery of Paul Moores, in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 64.
Trial was commenced before a twelve member jury on September 13, 1982. On September 17, 1982, the jury returned a guilty verdict of attempted armed robbery as to both defendants. Additionally, it returned a responsive verdict to the charge of attempted first degree murder and found Gordon L. Bradford guilty of attempted manslaughter. Further, it returned a verdict of not guilty to the charge of attempted first degree murder as to Ruby Palmer. Motions for a new trial were denied.
After delays for sentencing expired the trial judge sentenced defendant Palmer to six (6) years at hard labor with the Department of Corrections without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and sentenced defendant Bradford to ten and one-half (10 1/2) years imprisonment at hard labor on the attempted manslaughter conviction to run concurrent with a sentence of forty-nine and one-half (49 1/2) years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the attempted armed robbery conviction. Both defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.
Defendant Bradford appeals his convictions and sentences alleging thirty-one (31) assignments of error, ten of which are briefed for the Court. 1 Defendant Palmer appeals her conviction and sentence alleging three (3) assignments of error, all of which are briefed for the Court.
During the early morning hours of February 5, 1982, Paul Moores left the Southern Spirits Lounge to go to his room at the Acadian Motel in Lafayette, Louisiana. Mr. Moores had been drinking at the lounge from about 9 P.M. to about Midnight and had bought several rounds of drinks for a girl named Janet and some people sitting with her at the bar. Mr. Moores had $760.00 on his person at that time, most of which he left with the bartender who put it in a safe.
The defendants Palmer and Bradford were also drinking at the Southern Spirits Lounge that night. They, along with other companions, observed the victim and the large amount of money he possessed.
Mr. Moores left the lounge at Midnight with a man known as "Tree" later identified as Gary Platt. Mr. Moores had offered to share his hotel room with "Tree". Mr. Moores and Tree were accompanied by two women named Peggy Domingues and Francine Cole.
Shortly after the four arrived at Mr. Moores' room, there was a knock at his door. Tree opened the door and the defendants Palmer and Bradford along with one other male entered the room. Defendant Bradford struck Mr. Moores across the mouth with a pool cue and demanded his money. Moores told him he had left the money with the owner of the lounge for safekeeping. Apparently the defendants and their cohorts did not believe the victim, because the victim was knocked down to the floor, and held there by Tree and someone called "Animal." The defendants and the others then began beating and kicking the victim in an effort to force him to surrender his money to them. The victim was kicked repeatedly with steel toe boots, burned with a cigarette lighter and beaten with a cue stick as well as hit constantly with defendants' fists. The victim specifically recalled defendant Bradford kicking him and defendant Palmer burning him with a "Bic"--type cigarette lighter.
As the defendants and the other assailants beat and tortured the victim, they repeatedly demanded his money. This went on for a period of about three hours (from 1:00 A.M. until approximately 4:30 A.M.). Moores was stripped naked and tied to the bed with his own clothes. During this three-hour period one of the two girls that had come to the room with Moores from the lounge removed her clothes. She then attempted to force the victim to perform an unnatural sexual act. Following this the victim was again beaten. The victim then had an uncontrollable bowel movement and was untied and allowed to clean himself somewhat. Seeing this as his chance to escape, the victim made a rush for the window but was stopped. The attackers again tied the victim and began to beat him once more.
At this point the assailants went outside to the balcony to discuss the victim's fate. The victim overheard defendants Palmer and Bradford and the others say that after they got the money they would kill him because Moores could identify them; and further, that the patrons of the Southern Spirits Lounge knew who they were and saw the victim in their company.
When the defendants and the others came back into the room they decided to force the victim to phone the owner of the lounge; then they would take the victim to the lounge to get the money. Defendant Palmer told defendant Bradford that she would get a gun, which she then gave to Bradford. With the victim at gunpoint, Bradford went down to a laundromat and phoned the owner of the lounge. However, they were unable to reach this person because the lounge had already closed. The victim refused to go anywhere else. Bradford decided to abandon the plans to obtain the money; he and others left the victim at a convenience store.
Police officers Jackie Phelps and Mike Lavergne along with Sgt. Venable were dispatched to the 7-11 store where the victim had been left. Officer Ken Holleman was called to investigate a possible beating and robbery at 701 1/2 Cedar Crest Court. There he met two young women who said that they had witnessed a beating. After confirming that the man at the 7-11 might be the same one described by the two women, Officer Holleman proceeded to the 7-11 store to question the victim. Upon arrival Officer Holleman observed the victim covered with blood and seriously injured. The victim was unable at this point to give Officer Holleman a description of the suspects. However, the Officer was able to determine that the beating had taken place at Room 92 of the Acadian Motel.
When Officer Holleman went to Room 92 there was no one there but he observed that the room was very disarrayed and there was quite a bit of blood soaked into the carpet, on the chairs and the bed.
Subsequently, Officer Holleman went to the hospital to question the victim. The victim gave the officer a description of his assailants. Prior to going to the hospital the officer had obtained a description of the suspects from the two female witnesses. He found the suspects in a room at the Acadian Motel. There were six people in the room and two of them, Palmer and Bradford, matched the description given Officer Holleman.
The suspects were then taken to police headquarters for questioning. Officers observed what appeared to be blood stains on both suspects' shoes and clothing. Bradford and Palmer were then placed under arrest.
Defendants were later tried, found guilty, and sentenced as hereinabove stated. Both defendants have appealed their sentences and convictions alleging the following assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 (BRADFORD)
The defendant argues by this assignment that the trial court erred in permitting the State to obtain blood and hair samples from the defendant. Bradford asserts that this intrusion into his body was a direct violation of his rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. He maintains that the State had not laid sufficient grounds to justify the compulsory taking of these samples.
The record indicates that the State did make an effort to justify the needs for these samples. Through the testimony of Detective Dale Broussard, the District Attorney made it clear that these samples were necessary for comparative purposes. The defendant's boots, clothes, and the pool cue had hair and what appeared to be human blood stains on them. Since the victim sustained a brutal beating a proper foundation had been laid to require these samples for testing in order to discern the origin of the hair and blood. The record does not support defendant's claim.
There exists a line of jurisprudence which contradicts defendant's position. Both the United States and Louisiana State Supreme Courts have held that:
State v. Williams, 375 So.2d 931 (La.1979).
See also State v. Spence, 418 So.2d 583 (La.1982); State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074 (La.1982); State v. Carthan, 377 So.2d 308 (La.1979).
In State v. Carthan, the defendant was being held on charges of sexual assault. In that case the court held that the taking of blood and penile discharge samples from the defendant was not unreasonable and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Everett
... ... State v. Bretz, 394 So.2d 245 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 820, 102 S.Ct. 102, 70 L.Ed.2d 91 (1981); State v. Procell, 365 So.2d 484 (La.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2164, 60 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1979); State v. Palmer, 447 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984) ... The comments suggested to be appeals to prejudice are contained in the following statement: ... This man shot George Crawford in the back three times while handcuffed. Uncontradicted. I would suggest to you the only thing you have ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); State v. Carthan, 377 So.2d 308 (La.1979); State v. Palmer, 447 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). The taking of the defendant's clothes is not evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature and is thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment ... Turning to defendant's second argument, that the taking of his clothes violated his ... ...
-
State v. Mallett
... ... State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979). A sentence is excessive if the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime as to shock our sense of justice or if it operates to do nothing more than needlessly impose pain and suffering. State v. Cann, 471 So.2d 701 (La.1985); State v. Palmer, 447 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). The imposition of maximum sentence should be reserved for the most egregious and blameworthy of offenders. State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983). The trial court is given wide discretion in imposing a sentence, and a sentence imposed within the ... ...
-
State v. Douget
... ... State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663 (La.1982); State v. Cushenberry, 407 So.2d 700 (La.1981) ... In State v. Palmer, 447 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), the defendant complained that the prosecutor brought up other crimes. The defendant was charged ... with attempted armed robbery and the prosecutor stated: ... "So I have no doubt that an attempted armed robbery took place. I think maybe ... ...