Townes v. Com.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1974 |
| Parties | Lorenzo TOWNES v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
A. David Hawkins, Lynchburg (Overbey & Overbey, Rustburg, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Gilbert W. Haith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.
Defendant, Lorenzo Townes, was tried by a jury and found guilty of rape (Code § 18.1--44). He was sentenced to a term of 18 years in the State Penitentiary, and we granted him a writ of error.
Defendant has assigned error to the trial court's action, Inter alia, in overruling (1) his motion to suppress a key found on the ground at the scene of the crime and (2) his motion to suppress an alleged confession.
On the night of the rape, Officer J. B. Brown of the Altavista police department found a key at the scene of the crime. In the course of investigation, Brown and Sergeant F. H. Tucker went to a basement apartment in the vicinity, occupied by defendant, his two brothers and two females. Brown knocked on the door, which was opened by one of defendant's brothers. Brown asked if he and Tucker could come in and talk with the occupants. The officers were invited inside. At that time, the officers had no reason to suspect that anyone in the apartment had any connection with the crime.
While Brown was talking with defendant and his brothers, Tucker inserted the key in the lock from the outside of the open door and found that it fit. Apparently, none of the occupants of the apartment was aware that Tucker had tested the key.
Tucker, noticing that defendant had become nervous and restless, asked him to step outside and talk. Defendant consented. After a short conversation not related to the crime, defendant agreed to accompany the officers to police headquarters for further conversation. There he was fully advised of his Miranda rights before he was questioned about the crime. Defendant denied any knowledge of the crime but admitted losing the key which was shown him.
After about 15 minutes of questioning, defendant's two brothers arrived. They advised defendant to 'play it cool,' or words to that effect, and told the officers that defendant had an emotional problem. In response, Tucker said to defendant and his brothers that if defendant 'had any mental problem or sex problem or something of this nature that well, you know, if he had done this crime, we feel that the courts would try to do something for him. . . .' According to Tucker, no promises were made.
Because the police wanted to test the mud and grass stains on the clothes defendant was wearing, defendant's brothers returned to their apartment and brought him a change of clothes. As defendant was changing clothes in the presence of Brown, defendant spontaneously said, 'I did it.' Defendant repeated the admission shortly thereafter in Tucker's presence. He then made a further statement admitting the crime, which was reduced to writing and which defendant signed.
At a pre-trial hearing, the trial court found that there had been no illegal search; that the key and evidence surrounding it were admissible; and that the confession had been voluntarily made.
Defendant argues that because the act of trying the key in the lock of his apartment without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search, the fruits of that search, specifically the key and the confession, should have been suppressed. We do not agree.
Defendant's self-incriminating statements were made before he knew that the police had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hogan
...State (Alaska 1969) 454 P.2d 341, 346-347 [prior offer of "help" not motivating cause of waiver of Miranda rights]; Townes v. Commonwealth (1974) 214 Va. 683, 204 S.E.2d 269 [officers assured defendant that the courts would "do something" for his mental problem if he were guilty of the offe......
-
Williams v. Com.
...of gaining some advantage or avoidance of some evil in reference to the proceeding against the defendant. See Townes v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 683, 685, 204 S.E.2d 269, 271 (1974). Williams makes the subsidiary contention that his various confessions are internally inconsistent, and are cont......
-
State v. Beck
...other grounds, 439 U.S. 14, 99 S.Ct. 235, 58 L.Ed.2d 207 (1978); State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392, 388 A.2d 218 (1978); Townes v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 683, 204 S.E.2d 269 (1974); contra, Tatum v. State, 585 S.W.2d 957 (Ark.1979). The recent case of Slaten v. State, 367 So.2d 562 (Ala.Cr.App.19......
-
Rodgers v. Com.
...will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong. Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. at ---, 314 S.E.2d at 381. See Townes v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 683, 204 S.E.2d 269 (1974). The test for voluntariness derives from federal constitutional law relating to the Fifth Amendment as applied to the State......