State v. Segura
| Decision Date | 18 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. W2010-00952-CCA-R3-CD,W2010-00952-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSUE SEGURA |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
The defendant, Josue Segura, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, Segura argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, by refusing to grant a second mental evaluation, and by allowing the State to introduce certain photographs of the victim. Segura also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.
H. Andrew Crisler, III (on appeal) and Arthur E. Horne, III (at trial) Memphis, Tennessee, for the Defendant-Appellant, Josue Segura.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; Theresa S. McCusker and Chris West, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONOn May 27, 2006, the body of Daniel Darby, the victim, was found in a rut in an area of Memphis known as "Frayser bottoms." The victim's skull had been crushed as a result of five to seven blows to his head with a blunt object. Segura was the last person to be seen with the victim. Two days after the victim's body was found, Segura told authorities that he struck the victim seven times with a lead pipe in self-defense.
Motion to Suppress. Segura filed a motion to suppress his statements because they were obtained in violation of his "Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and Article I[,] § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution." He also claimed his statements were involuntary because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
At the suppression hearing, Detective Milton Gonzalez, a native Spanish speaker who was employed with the Project Safe Neighborhoods task force of the Memphis Police Department, testified that he assisted officers investigating the death of the victim. He arrived at the homicide bureau around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. on May 29, 2006. He was briefed on the circumstances of the case and entered the room where Segura was seated. Detective Gonzalez initially spoke with Segura in English to determine how much of the English language Segura understood. At the time, he did not inform Segura that he also spoke Spanish. After speaking with Segura for a few moments, Detective Gonzalez determined that Segura "did not need a translator per se." Although Segura was slow to respond at times, he opined that Segura understood everything that was said to him.
Eventually, Detective Gonzalez spoke in Spanish to Segura and determined that Segura was from Panama. Detective Gonzalez asked Segura if he had a different dialect, and Segura said, "No." Detective Gonzalez explicitly asked Segura if Segura had any problems understanding Detective Gonzalez's Spanish, to which Segura replied, "No." Detective Gonzalez said he also understood Segura when Segura spoke in Spanish. Detective Gonzalez said he tried to keep the questions "fairly simple" and did not use any "big words." Detective Gonzalez said Segura spoke to him in English "seventy-five to eighty percent of the time." The detective explained his interaction with Segura:
When I spoke to him, he pretty much responded in what we call Spanglish [sic]. A little bit of English, a little bit of Spanish. Whenever he had a tough time explaining something, he would revert back to Spanish and say what he was saying, wanting to say, in Spanish instead of English.
Detective Gonzalez said that at some points during questioning, Segura would " Detective Gonzalez said that he would explain or respond to Segura in Spanish, and Segura would then respond in English. Segura was advised of his Miranda rights each time the detectives began a conversation with him. Detective Gonzalez stated that Segura was advised of his Miranda rights in both English and Spanish. The Spanish version of the Miranda rights, which was provided to Detective Gonzalez through the police academy, was read to Segura "word for word."
Detective Gonzalez said he saw Segura sign two advice of rights forms prior to his interviews on May 29, 2006, and May 30, 2006. Each form was admitted into evidence during the hearing, along with the advice of rights section preceding two formal typewritten statements given by Segura. The advice of rights forms had the Miranda warnings in English on the front and in Spanish on the back.1 Segura also placed his initials next to each of his rights, signifying that Segura understood them.
After the conclusion of the first formal written statement, Segura read it to himself in English, and Detective Gonzalez then read it aloud to Segura in Spanish. Segura made some corrections to the initial statement. For example, the statement included the word "interject," and Segura corrected it to read "inject" and placed his initials next to the correction. Segura also corrected three other typographical errors in the statement and placed his initials next to them. Segura also placed his initials on each of the seven pages of the formal typewritten statement. Detective Gonzalez was present during the interviews as well as the formal written statements given by Segura. Detective Gonzalez stated that at the time of these written statements, Segura appeared to understand his Miranda rights and declined to invoke any of these rights.
On cross-examination, Detective Gonzalez agreed that the word dialect was "difficult" and that he had to explain it to Segura during their discussion. Detective Gonzalez explained that he was a certified instructor for the police academy who had taught "survival Spanish" for the police academy. However, he agreed that he had no specialized training in translation and was not court certified. Detective Gonzalez acknowledged that the formal written statements did not reflect the particular times that Segura needed assistance with translation. Detective Gonzalez further acknowledged that Segura had been interviewed prior to the detective's arrival at the bureau. He was unsure of the amount of time that Segura had been in custody prior to his interaction with him. He agreed that Segura was interviewed "all day" and that the first interview ended at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. Detective Gonzalez said that he did not advise Segura of his rights under the Vienna Convention because he was unfamiliar with the law.
On re-direct examination, Detective Gonzalez said that Segura was healthier at the hearing than he was when he was interviewed. He explained that Segura was "skin and bones" during the interview and appeared to be living a "rough life." Detective Gonzalez acknowledged that Segura was "tired" and "not all there" on the first day. However, the next day Segura "seemed more apt to speaking with [the officers]." On re-cross examination, Detective Gonzalez said that it was "hard to say" whether Segura was under the influenceof alcohol or drugs on the first day but that Segura seemed "squared away" on the second day.
Detective Chris Harris of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department testified that he participated in the investigation of the victim's death. He arrived at the homicide bureau the morning of May 29, 2006, and was advised that Segura had "already signed the Rights Waiver form." Detective Harris observed the signed advice of rights form and began talking to Segura in English. He spoke to Segura in English for the next two days and "felt comfortable with the fact that [Segura] could speak English[.]" Detective Harris said that Detective Gonzalez was present during his discussion with Segura to "clear up" any language problems.
Detective Harris personally advised Segura of his Miranda rights prior to speaking with him the next day, May 30, 2006. Detective Harris said the majority of the interview was "one[-]on[-]one [in] English between [Segura and Harris]." Detective Harris then corroborated the testimony of Detective Gonzalez with regard to the process by which Segura was interviewed. He said that Segura never indicated that there were any kind of cultural differences that precluded Segura from understanding what was happening during the interview process.
Detective Harris explained that Segura's statements were typed but were not recorded because that was the policy of the Memphis Police Department. He also said that it would have been difficult "to make heads or tails of [a recording]" because it would have contained statements in both Spanish and English.
Segura testified that he did not understand any of the rights in the advice of rights form. He signed the advice of rights forms because he "had promised [the officers] [he] would give them cooperation." On cross-examination, Segura said that he understood Detective Gonzalez's statements to him. However, he insisted that he was not advised he would be arrested when he initially agreed to go to the police bureau. Segura said when he rode to the bureau with the officer, he was not told that the victim was dead. Segura was confused when his rights were initially explained to him, and he thought he was "getting ahead of his court date" because of fighting with the victim.
Rachel Morin testified that she had known Segura for three or four years prior to the victim's death and considered Segura a friend. Morin testified that Segura spoke ...
To continue reading
Request your trial