State v. Tilley

• Decision Date: 06 July 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-KA-0569.,99-KA-0569.
• Citation: 767 So.2d 6
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Donald TILLEY.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

767 So.2d 6

STATE of Louisiana v. Donald TILLEY.

No. 99-KA-0569.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 6, 2000.

Rehearing Denied August 31, 2000.

Anthony James Hebert, Baton Rouge, Robert L. McGlasson, Clive Adrian Stafford Smith, New Orleans, Peggy S. Trammell-Goods, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Applicant.

Dale R. Lee, Creighton Brooks Abadie, Baton Rouge, Antonio Marcell Clayton, Port Allen, Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, John A. Cannon, Kenner, Stephen Nichols Pugh, Monisa L. Thompson, Douglas P. Moreau, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Respondent.

VICTORY, J.¹

On March 27, 1996, after ten days of voir dire, and a five-day trial, an East Baton Rouge Parish jury found defendant, Donald Tilley, guilty of the first degree murder of Roscoe Brister. One day later, after the penalty phase hearing, the jury sentenced defendant to death after finding the three aggravating circumstances urged by the state: 1) the offender was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of Armed Robbery, First-Degree Robbery, or Simple Robbery; 2) the victim was 65 years of age or older; and 3) the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.4. On direct appeal to this Court under La. Const. Art. 5, Sec. 5(D), defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, raising 17 assignments of error. None of the errors are meritorious.² Therefore, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On March 14, 1996, the victim, 68-year-old Roscoe Brister and his fiancé, Vallie Miles, drove to a Burger King in East Baton Rouge Parish. Ms. Miles handed the victim $10.00 to get their food, and he stepped out of the car to enter the restaurant. Before he could reach the restaurant, defendant approached him and asked him for his money. Ms. Miles heard the victim claim he did not have any money and then saw defendant grab the ten dollar bill from his hand. Defendant then began stabbing Mr. Brister, who suffered a total of five stab wounds. Burger King employees witnessed the offense and ran to the victim's aide. Mr. Brister told them not to let defendant get away and several of the employees gave chase. Defendant threw his knife down under the interstate and was soon caught by his pursuers, who sat on him until police arrived.

ERRORS ALLEGED AT THE PRETRIAL STAGE

Failure to suppress defendant's custodial statements

In his fourteenth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his custodial statements. Specifically, defendant argues that while being interrogated he indicated that he wished to cease the interrogation and speak with an attorney. According to appellate counsel, rather than providing him with an attorney, police continued to go "on with the booking process," and, as a result, defendant was given the message that he would not receive a lawyer until the police "felt good and ready to allow it."

Once an individual in custody expresses a desire to deal with police only through counsel, all questioning must cease immediately and he is not subject to further interrogation until an attorney is present, unless the suspect initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversation with the police and validly waives his earlier request for counsel. State v. Koon, 96-1208, pp. 6-9 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756, 762-763, cert. denied, Koon v. Louisiana, 522 U.S. 1001, 118 S.Ct. 570, 139 L.Ed.2d 410 (1997) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 440-445, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State v. Abadie, 612 So.2d 1, 4-5 (La.1993), cert. denied, Louisiana v. Abadie, 510 U.S. 816, 114 S.Ct. 66, 126 L.Ed.2d 35 (1993); State v. Lee, 524 So.2d 1176, 1183 (La. 1987)). When a defendant exercises his privilege against self-incrimination, the validity of any subsequent waiver depends upon whether the police have "scrupulously honored" his right to cut off questioning. State v. Koon, supra (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). However, police are not obliged to ignore spontaneous and unsolicited statements by someone in custody, as long as those statements do not result from police-initiated custodial interrogation or questioning "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." Id. (Citing State v. Ross, 95-1798 (La.3/8/96), 669 So.2d 384, 386 (per curiam)). Nor does a previous assertion of the right to counsel bar admission of such statements. Id. When an accused invokes his Miranda right to counsel, the admissibility of a subsequent confession is determined by a two-step inquiry: (1) did the accused initiate further conversation or communication; and (2) was the purported waiver of counsel knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. Id.; State v. Abadie, supra at pp. 5-6.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Brinkhaus testified that he was present when two audio taped statements were made voluntarily by defendant. The detective testified that when he first contacted defendant, he was in the booking area of the parish prison. At that time, he advised him of his rights and the defendant indicated that he wished to speak with an attorney. The detective immediately ceased speaking with him and finished the booking process. Then, while fingerprinting the defendant, defendant told the detective that he had changed his mind and was willing to give a statement without an attorney present. The detective testified that the defendant initiated the conversation and that he went over all of the defendant's rights pursuant to Miranda before commencing any interview. In addition, the state admitted into evidence a waiver of rights form signed by defendant which indicates that he agreed to give the detective a statement and that he had two years of college education. Moreover, Detective Wolfanger testified that he and Detective-Sergeant Brinkhaus were both present when defendant gave his video-taped statement and that neither of them made any promises or inducements, nor did they threaten or coerce defendant in order to get the statement. The officer also testified that not only did he inform defendant of his Miranda rights, but so did the arresting officers. Furthermore, Detective Bates testified that he witnessed defendant give the video-taped statement and that the officers involved did not coerce defendant in any manner. The defense presented no evidence to contradict this testimony.

Accordingly, all the evidence presented at the motion to suppress indicated that defendant reinitiated contact with police after his invocation of his right to counsel expressing that he would give a statement without an attorney present, and that this waiver was knowing and intelligent. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, and this assignment of error is without merit.

ERRORS ALLEGED DURING VOIR DIRE

Batson Violations

In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Defendant insists that the state struck African-American jurors peremptorily for reasons that do not appear race-neutral. Specifically, defendant contends that: 1) the prosecutor expressly interjected race as a relevant factor in the Batson inquiry by justifying his jury selection strategy in part upon his own race, suggesting that because he is African-American he is not capable of racial discrimination; 2) the trial court erroneously denied defendant's Batson challenge while simultaneously finding the prosecutor's purported race-neutral explanations were "disingenuous"; 3) the prosecutor acknowledged consciousness of a Batson violation by offering to withdraw the most offending of his peremptory challenges against an African-American juror after the trial court had denied the defense's Batson motion.

Under Batson, a defendant must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing facts and relevant circumstances which raise an inference that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on account of their race. State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99), 752 So.2d 771, 782. The burden of production then shifts to the state to come forward with a race-neutral explanation, and if the race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court then must decide, in step three, whether the defendant has proven purposeful racial discrimination. Id.; Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995)(per curiam) (citations omitted); State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815, 818 (La. 1989). Although the state's explanation must be based on more than an assumption or a hunch, State v. Collier, supra, to be facially valid, it need not be persuasive, or even plausible; thus unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral. State v. Hobley, supra; Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767, 115 S.Ct. at 1771.

Faced with a race-neutral explanation, the defendant then must prove to the trial court purposeful discrimination. Id. (Citing Batson, supra; Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)). The proper inquiry in the final stage of the Batson analysis is whether the defendant's proof, when weighed against the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reasons, is sufficient to persuade the trial court that such discriminatory intent is present. Id. (Citing State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, 290). Thus, the focus of the Batson inquiry is upon the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes. Id. The trial court should examine all of the available evidence in an effort to discern patterns of strikes and other statements or actions by the...