State v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 28 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-KA-310,93-KA-310
• Citation: State v. Watkins, 625 So.2d 507 (La. App. 1993)
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. William WATKINS.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 507

625 So.2d 507

STATE of Louisiana v.William WATKINS.

No. 93-KA-310.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1993.

John D. Rawls, Indigent Defender Bd., Gretna, for defendant/appellant.

Dorothy A. Pendergast, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gretna, for plaintiff/appellee.

William B. Faust, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Metairie, for plaintiff/appellee.

Before BOWES, GRISBAUM and WICKER, JJ.

BOWES, Judge.

Defendant, William Watkins, appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:31.For the following reasons we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment against the defendant on July 18, 1991.Defendant was charged originally with first degree murder in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30.At the arraignment defendant pled not guilty.Subsequently, the State amended the indictment to charge defendant with second degree murder.The matter proceeded to trial before a twelve person jury on September 21-25, 1992.After considering the evidence presented, the jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter.On December 2, 1992, the trial judge sentenced defendant to ten years at hard labor, with credit for time served.Defendant appeals.

FACTS

Ms. Barbara Jefferson testified that she had known defendant for approximately six years, during which time they had an intimate relationship.As a result of this relationship, they had one child together.Ms. Jefferson claimed that she and defendant had lived together for several months, however, he was not living with her during the three month period prior to the incident, although he did visit and stay overnight about seven times.

On July 6, 1991, at approximately 1:30 a.m. defendant, William Watkins, arrived at Ms. Jefferson's residence, located at 1036 Sandalwood Drive in Harvey and sought to enter.At that time, Ms. Jefferson and a friend, Tommy Brual, were in her bedroom watching television while her three girls were in the den.When no one opened the door to let Watkins in, he climbed through the window and called for Barbara.When he saw Brual, the two started fighting.According to Ms. Jefferson, the defendant had a screwdriver in his hand but Brual had no weapon.As a result of the fight, defendant apparently stabbed Brual with a screwdriver causing him to fall to the ground.

After Brual fell, Ms. Jefferson and defendant got into a fight.Defendant hit her and then left.She grabbed the phone from her daughter, who was trying to contact police, and called the police.

Deputy Sean Lusk of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office responded to the 911 call.At that time Brual was transported to the hospital where he died at approximately 3:00 p.m.

Sergeant Curtis Snow subsequently arrived at the scene and took over the investigation.Snow initially talked to the officers on the scene to get an idea of what had happened.He then talked to the family members living at that residence and investigated the scene for possible evidence.

In the meantime, defendant, as a possible suspect, was apprehended in the area and brought back to the scene.Sergeant Snow instructed Deputy Roger Ballard to take defendant to the detective bureau for an interview.

Once at the detective bureau, Sergeant Schultz advised defendant of his constitutional rights and went over the waiver of rights form with defendant.After being so advised defendant signed the form, expressing his desire to waive his constitutional rights and make a statement.Defendant then gave a taped statement which was later transcribed.At the time of the statement, defendant was charged with aggravated battery; however, when the victim died, the charge was changed to murder.

In the defendant's statement, which was admitted into evidence at the trial, he stated that he climbed through the window when no one answered the door.As he went to the bedroom, he called out Barbara's name.As a man whom he had never seen before ran towards him, defendant started swinging the screwdriver that he had in his hand.After the defendant hit him with the screwdriver, he fell down.The defendant left and threw the screwdriver by the tree in the front yard.In his statement, defendant claimed that he previously had lived at that residence with Barbara and her three children for about one year.

Further summaries of the evidence and testimony of the trial are unnecessary for purposes of this appeal, except to reiterate that following trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO

SUPPRESS THE APPELLANT'S TAPED STATEMENT.

Defendant sets forth several contradictions in the testimony of the police officers and contends that "these contradictions would cause any reasonable person to harbor a reasonable doubt as to the circumstances under which this confession was obtained."He further contends that because the State failed to carry its heavy burden of proof due to these irreconcilable contradictions, the motion to suppress should have been granted.

Before a confession or inculpatory statement can be introduced into evidence, the State has the burden of proving that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 703(D);LSA-R.S. 15:451;State v. Vaccaro, 411 So.2d 415(La.1982);State v. Leeming, 612 So.2d 308(La.App. 5 Cir.1992).It must also be established that an accused who makes a confession during a custodial interrogation was first advised of his constitutional rights as per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966) and voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights.State v. Castillo, 389 So.2d 1307(La.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 922, 101 S.Ct. 3159, 69 L.Ed.2d 1004(1981);State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175(La.App. 5 Cir.1990).

In Weiland, supra, we further summarized other jurisprudence on the issue as follows:

Whether a showing of voluntariness has been made is analyzed on a case by case basis with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.The trial judge must consider the 'totality of the circumstances' in deciding whether the confession is admissible.State v. Shepherd, 449 So.2d 1120(La.App. 5th Cir.1984).The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial judge.His conclusions on the credibility and weight of testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned on appeal unless they are not supported by the evidence.State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129(La.1983), State v. Toups, [499 So.2d 1149(La.App. 5th Cir.1986) ]supra, State v. Beck, 445 So.2d 470(La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), writ denied, 446 So.2d 315(La.1984).

Also, State v. Castillo, supra.

In the present case, the issue of the voluntariness of the statement turns on the credibility of the witnesses.The following testimony was adduced at the suppression hearing which was conducted on October 9 and 16, 1992:

Sergeant Norman Schultz of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office testified that on July 6, 1992, pursuant to Officer Snow's request, he interviewed defendant at the detective bureau.Prior to taking a statement, Schultz read defendant his rights, explaining each one, and then allowed defendant to read the rights himself.Schultz also advised defendant that he was under arrest and would probably be charged with aggravated battery.After advising Schultz that he clearly understood everything, defendant signed the waiver of rights form, expressing his desire to make a statement.At approximately 4:05 a.m., after a brief oral interview, Officer Schultz began taping defendant's statement, which was later transcribed.It is noted that Sergeant Schultz and defendant were alone during the course of this interview.

According to Schultz's testimony, defendant was very cooperative.Defendant spoke in a normal tone of voice and did not appear to be intoxicated.In addition, defendant was not coerced, intimidated or promised anything in exchange for making the statement, although he was told that it is always best to cooperate.After Schultz testified about the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, the State rested.

Defendant then called several officers, who were present at the scene, to testify in an attempt to show that a great deal of physical pressure was placed on defendant which caused him to feel compelled to cooperate.However, these officers denied that any mistreatment to defendant occurred or that any undue or improper physical pressure was applied to him.

After the testimony of these officers, defendant testified that when he was initially stopped by Detective Jerry Lewis, he was physically mistreated.According to defendant, Lewis stopped him, placed him up against the car, and then waited for other officers to arrive before handcuffing him.After he was handcuffed, Lewis stepped on the back of his knee, causing defendant to go down to the ground.At that point, two other deputies told him that "you're about to have a lie detector test."They then hit him in the head with a flashlight, about 3 or 4 times, in an attempt to get information about the location of the screwdriver.He was placed in a police car and brought around the corner to the scene of the crime.While there, one officer told defendant that if they did not find the screwdriver, he was going to be sorry.They then took defendant out of the car to look for the screwdriver although defendant stated he was not being intimidated during the actual search.Thereafter, defendant was transported to the detective bureau.Defendant admitted that he was not physically mistreated once he got to the detective bureau.The detective read him his rights, told him that he was charged with assault and battery, and asked if he wanted to make a statement.When defendant asked the...