State v. Sheehan
| Decision Date | 04 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. CR87-356,CR87-356 |
| Citation | 515 So.2d 670 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. John Anthony SHEEHAN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Lewis O. Unglesby, Unglesby & Heck, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Jerold E. Knoll, Dist. Atty., David Lafargue, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marksville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GUIDRY, FORET and YELVERTON, JJ.
On August 5, 1986, defendant, John Anthony Sheehan, was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, in connection with the shooting death of his wife. At the time of the shooting, which occurred in the Parish of Avoyelles, John Sheehan was an enlisted member of the U.S. Air Force stationed at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Subsequent to his indictment, in connection with their own internal investigation and in cooperation with civilian authorities, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (O.S.I.) caused a polygraph examination to be administered to Airman First Class Sheehan. The results of that examination, along with accompanying inculpatory statements, were turned over to the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Department. Defendant, by a motion to suppress which was heard and denied on October 31, 1986, sought to exclude certain inculpatory statements allegedly made to the O.S.I. officer who conducted the polygraph examination. On November 19, 1986, a jury of twelve, ten of whom concurred in the verdict, found the defendant guilty as charged. Defendant moved for a new trial. This motion, after hearing, was denied. Upon waiving all delays, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals his conviction based on the following four assignments of error:
1. Trial court erred in admitting statements made by the defendant and failing to suppress statements made by the defendant, and in denying the motion to suppress the said statements.
2. Trial court erred in that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, and erred in failing to grant a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence.
3. Trial court erred in that the absence of the transcript prohibits the defendant from intelligently asserting his appellate rights, from properly perfecting assignments of error, and from briefing to this court the issue of sufficiency of the evidence required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, and State v. Thetford, 445 So2d 128.
4. Trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial based on the defects in jury selection and the admissibility of inadmissible statements and opinions made by various witnesses.
Assignment of error number four was not briefed on appeal and is considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982). As we find merit to assignment of error number one, assignments of error numbered two and three will not be addressed.
Defendant-appellant, John Anthony Sheehan, and the victim, Monica Jeansonne Sheehan, were married in Louisiana in May 1984, upon Monica's graduation from high school. Following their marriage, the couple moved to Florida where the defendant was stationed with the U.S. Air Force. During the first year or so of their marriage, the couple had marital problems which resulted in bruises to Monica on several occasions and a hospital visit once. On one occasion, appellant allegedly said he hated her so much he could just kill her and slammed her against the wall. The couple received marriage counseling at the suggestion of John's superiors and, according to defendant, they resolved their marital problems. Subsequently, on September 3, 1985, Monica gave birth to a son with the assistance of the appellant in the hospital as her "Lamaze Coach".
The record reflects that in June 1984, a John Hancock agent solicited and sold defendant a $25,000.00 insurance policy on the life of Monica Sheehan. On April 17, 1986, the defendant sought additional insurance on the life of Monica Sheehan from the same agent, allegedly for the purpose of equalizing coverage for both spouses in light of his military insurance coverage. A policy of variable insurance with $50,000.00 coverage was taken insuring the life of Monica. Mrs. Sheehan was present during the negotiations and in the application stated no other insurance was pending or contemplated. Coverage was immediate through the execution of a military pay allotment form executed by the defendant. The following week, on April 23, 1986, defendant contacted a State Farm life insurance agent about obtaining additional insurance. At the State Farm office, appellant completed an application for a variable life policy providing $75,000.00 coverage on the life of each spouse and $10,000.00 coverage on the life of the couple's infant son. In the application, he stated no other applications for life insurance were pending with other companies. When the agent inquired as to when Monica could come in to sign the form and indicate her choice of final beneficiary, defendant explained it was difficult for his wife to come in and suggested he take the application home for her to complete. The agent agreed to this and the next morning defendant returned the completed form along with $88.00 in cash, putting the policy into effect immediately. The defendant signed Monica's name on the application however, he made no attempt to duplicate Monica's signature.
The victim and defendant traveled to Zachary, Louisiana, on April 29, 1986, where they spent the night at the victim's mother's house enroute to a wedding of one of Monica's friends. The next morning they drove to Plaucheville, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, to the defendant's grandparents' home to visit. Sometime after their arrival, the defendant allegedly began to clean his grandfather's shotgun, by wiping the exterior with an oily rag. The victim was seated, cross-legged, on the den floor playing a game when the shotgun discharged. She was struck in the upper left chest area with the pellets traveling in a sixty to seventy degree angle and exiting the middle of her back. The defendant's grandmother, who was in the kitchen (the kitchen and den were separated by a bar rather than a wall) sent John to find his grandfather and telephoned for help. Mrs. Marks, the grandmother, was present when the ambulance arrived, but John did not return until afterwards.
The two nurses who responded to the call testified that they found the victim dead on the floor with two green unspent shotgun shells on the floor next to the body and a red spent shell several feet away. Detective Robert Venable of the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Deparment, who arrived at the scene sometime later, testified that he removed one spent red shell and one unspent red shell from the pump action shotgun. He found no spent shell on the floor, only the two green unspent shells. At trial, Mrs. Marks testified that there were four unspent green shotgun shells on the bar when the couple arrived and that the baby had played with two of them on the floor. She could not account for the whereabouts of the other two shells.
Detective Venable testified that, following Monica's death, some members of her family contacted him to express suspicion of foul play and to relate the Sheehans' history of marital discord. He stated that he also received a call from one of the non-commissioned officers who worked with the defendant at Eglin expressing concern that a person like John, who was very familiar with firearms, could be involved in such an accident. These expressions of suspicion and concern prompted further investigation by Venable. He testified that, during that investigation, he contacted the O.S.I. at Eglin Air Force Base where he spoke with Larry Brown and Agent Jerry Adams to request their cooperation. The O.S.I. agents agreed to cooperate and apparently began their own independent investigation in cooperation with the civilian authorities.
On August 5, 1986, defendant, John Sheehan, was indicted by a grand jury. On Thursday, August 14, 1986, he was arraigned in Marksville, Louisiana, and upon joint motion of the defense and the State, was granted permission to return to active duty at Eglin pending trial. That very same day, unknown to Sheehan, O.S.I. Special Agent Joseph H. Walker, U.S.A.F., contacted Detective Venable to inquire if the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Office would have any objection to his administering a polygraph examination to Sheehan. Detective Venable informed Agent Walker that neither he nor his department objected to such an examination. Testifying at the motion to suppress, Detective Venable denied that any agreement was reached that the results of the examination or any statement secured by Agent Walker would be turned over to the civilian authorities, but Detective Venable did travel to Eglin Air Force Base on Monday, August 18, 1986, and was present in the O.S.I. building when Sheehan was questioned and the test administered. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Venable testified as follows:
"Q. And I take it you were not present during the polygraph exam?
A. No I wasn't.
Q. How long after ... or did you speak to Mr. Walker after the examination and subsequent interview of Mr. Sheehan?
A. Yes I did.
Q. And where did that conversation take place?
A. In the OSI detachment office at England [sic] Air Force Base.
Q. Did someone contact you and tell you that the interview was over and you could come over, or you should go over or something of that nature, or did you just show up?
A. I was already there.
Q. And you decided ... you were where on the base or on [sic] the building?
A. I was at England [sic] Air Force Base OSI detachment.
Q. And did you contact Mr. Walker or did he contact you after the interview?
A. He was there and we spoke.
Q. Who contacted whom?
A. Well I was in the room and he walked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sheehan
...of La.R.S. 14:30.1, for the April 30, 1986, shooting death of his wife. On appeal from the first conviction this court reversed, 515 So.2d 670, because of a due process violation. In April 1988 Sheehan was again convicted, and it is from the second conviction that the present appeal is Defe......
-
State v. Sheehan
...of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR87-0356; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. "B", No. 60622. Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 670. ...