State v. White

• Decision Date: 18 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-KA-2519,80-KA-2519
• Citation: 399 So.2d 172
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy Stacy WHITE.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 172

399 So.2d 172

STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy Stacy WHITE.

No. 80-KA-2519.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1981.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1981.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul J. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Sonia D. Peters, and Dale Cox, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

W. Michael Adams, of Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

DENNIS, Justice. ^*

Defendant, Jimmy Stacy White, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter, La.R.S 14:31, and sentenced to serve four years in prison at hard labor. On appeal he urges six assignments of error in which we find no reversible error. Consequently, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

In the early morning hours of June 10, 1979, the defendant returned home from drinking beer with neighbors and found that his wife had gone out during his absence. She returned shortly, however, and entered the house holding his pistol. After confronting her, the defendant, according to one of his confessions, grabbed the gun and slung the holster from it, intending to hit her with it. He pulled the trigger instead and the bullet creased the left side of his wife's head. He immediately took her to the hospital where she died later that day.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

The defendant assigns as error the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress inculpatory statements made by the defendant. The first contested statement was made by the defendant to Officer Allen Hall of the Shreveport Police Department while at the hospital.

Hall testified that he observed the defendant's car travelling at a high rate of speed and followed it to the hospital. In part to obtain information requested by hospital personnel, Hall asked the defendant his name, the name of the victim, and his relationship to her. Hall also asked where the shooting occurred to determine whether it had happened within city police jurisdiction. The defendant responded that the shooting occurred on Pinehill Road. The officer then asked the defendant who shot the woman. The defendant stated that he had shot his wife and continued without further questioning from Hall to explain what happened. According to Hall, the defendant said he argued with his wife before leaving to have drinks with friends. When he came back, his wife was out, but she returned shortly. As the couple quarreled again, defendant's wife pulled out a gun and aimed it at him. The defendant took the gun, pointed it at his wife, and shot her.

The defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because he was not given Miranda warnings immediately when he revealed he had shot his wife. The state argues that Miranda warnings were not required because the defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation during his statement to Hall.

The evidence supports the trial court's ruling. The officer's questions were posed during a general investigation of the shooting before the defendant was placed in custody or became the focus of the investigation. Miranda warnings are not a prerequisite to admissibility of statements taken by officers during non-custodial, general on-the-scene investigations, conducted to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a possible crime, absent a showing that the investigation has passed the investigatory stage and has focused on the accused. State v. Weeks, 345 So.2d 26 (La.1977); State v. Brown, 340 So.2d 1306 (La.1976). It was only as the defendant gave the incriminating details of the killing that the investigation focused on the defendant and the officer decided to detain him. The defendant does not allege that his statement was involuntarily made. The answer to a later question by Hall was suppressed.

The defendant also unsuccessfully sought to have his oral statements made to Detective Ron Strother at the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office suppressed. He concedes that he was fully advised of his Miranda rights, but contends that his statements were nevertheless involuntarily made. He alleges that he was so emotionally upset and physically exhausted that he was incapable of freely and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights.

The trial judge's determination that the state satisfied its burden of proving that these statements were freely and voluntarily given is amply supported by the record. Although the defendant was understandably upset over the events of the past few hours, his emotional distress and fatigue were not so great as to vitiate the free and voluntary nature of his statements. The record shows that no threats, promises, or undue pressure were used. The defendant displayed no reluctance or inability to make these statements. Both statements were virtually identical, the second statement was recorded and its transcription forms the basis of assignment of error three.

This assignment is without merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

The defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress a gun, holster, and photographs resulting from a warrantless search of his residence.

The testimony offered at the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress this tangible evidence revealed that Deputies Kemper and Lowery went to the defendant's residence when they received information that there had been a shooting in the area. They had not been provided with an exact address, but saw a house where the lights were on, the stereo was playing, and the front door was open. They approached and saw blood on the floor and wall through the screen door. They knocked, but no one answered. One deputy went next door to see if they had found the Whites' house and if the neighbors knew about a shooting. Defendant's mother lived next door and his daughter was spending the night with her. They were unaware of the shooting and were eager to enter the Whites' house. The deputies refused the relatives access but entered themselves to determine if there were other participants in the incident. They saw a trail of blood leading from the front door to the kitchen where they found a gun on the kitchen table. However, the officers did not seize the gun nor disturb the scene in any way. Instead, they called the sheriff's office to request that an investigator be sent for.

Detective Ron Strother arrived at the house about thirty minutes later and was met there by Deputy Malec, an identification officer, Deputy Lowery and Deputy Kemper. Strother had not yet interviewed the defendant and knew only that a shooting had been reported. He and Malec entered the house, took photographs, and seized the defendant's gun and holster. This second search of the house lasted about forty-five minutes. Afterwards, but before leaving the scene, the deputies were informed that the defendant's wife had been shot and that the defendant had taken her to the hospital.

The United States Supreme Court in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), held that a "murder scene exception" created by the Arizona Supreme Court to the warrant requirement is inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and restated the rules governing the search of a person's home. Warrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless "the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Mincey v. Arizona, supra, at 394, 98 S.Ct. at 2414, 57 L.Ed.2d at 301; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153, 158 (1948). For example, the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Similarly, when the police come upon the scene of a homicide they may make a prompt, warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises. Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. at 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d at 300. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509-10, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1949-50, 56 L.Ed.2d 486, 498-99 (1978). And the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities. Michigan v. Tyler, supra, 436 U.S. at 509-10, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-66, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-38, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 582-83 (1971). But a warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S. at 393, 98 S.Ct. at 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d at 300, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968). See also Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (search of arrested suspect and area within his control for weapons or evidence); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) ("hot pursuit" of fleeing suspect); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (imminent destruction of evidence).

Applying these precepts, we conclude that the initial warrantless search of defendant's residence was justified under the circumstances. Deputies Kemper and Lowery were entitled to make a prompt warrantless search of the premises to see if there were other victims or persons in need of immediate aid or if a killer was still on the premises. Moreover, their search was strictly confined to this purpose. Mincey v. Arizona, supra.

We have grave doubts, however, that the second search by officers Strother and Maler was lawful. Before Strother and Maler entered the defendant's house, the emergency justifying the first search was over. The possibility of other victims or culprits inside had been eliminated. Furthermore, the second search cannot be justified in this case on the grounds of the need to preserve evidence. There was no...