Vena v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-304,95-304 |
| Citation | 941 P.2d 33 |
| Parties | Joseph J. VENA, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Sylvia Lee Hackl, State Public Defender, PDP; Peter H. Froelicher, Assistant Public Defender, argued, for Appellant.
William U. Hill, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jon Forwood, Special Assistant Attorney General; Mary Beth Wolff, Laramie County Deputy District Attorney, argued, for Appellee.
Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.
The primary focus in this appeal, taken by Joseph J. Vena (Vena) from his convictions of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, in violation of WYO. STAT. § 6-1-303 (1988), and first degree murder, in violation of WYO. STAT. § 6-2-101 (Supp.1994), is upon the voluntariness of statements given to law enforcement officers in which Vena admitted his involvement in the charged crimes. Vena asserts that the trial court erred in its pre-trial ruling that the statements were voluntary, and also in improperly instructing the jury on the issue of voluntariness of the statements. Additional assertions of error in Vena's brief and argument include the denial of access to the psychiatric evaluation of a codefendant; the failure of the trial court to apply the doctrine of merger to the sentences for accessory to first degree murder and conspiracy to commit that murder; the denial of a motion for a mistrial after violation of an order in limine entered by the trial court; and the failure to admit the entirety of Vena's written and recorded confession. Our study of this record and application of pertinent legal rules reveals that no reversible error was committed at Vena's trial. The Judgment and Sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed.
Six issues are set forth in the Brief of Appellant, filed on behalf of Vena:
I. Were Vena's statements voluntary?
II. Did the district court commit reversible error in denying Vena's motion to discover his codefendant's mental evaluation?
III. Should the district court have applied the doctrine of merger of sentences to Vena's convictions of accessory to murder and conspiracy to murder?
IV. Did the district court commit a clear abuse of discretion when it denied Vena's motion for a mistrial?
V. Was it reversible error for the district court not to admit Vena's entire recorded confession upon request by the defendant in accordance with the rule of completeness?
VI. Did the district court err when it instructed the jury?
Only four issues are articulated in Brief of Appellee, the State of Wyoming:
I. Whether Appellant's statements to law enforcement were voluntary and the jury was properly instructed on the issue of voluntariness.
II. Whether the trial court properly denied Appellant's discovery request for Paul Brown's mental evaluation report.
III. Whether Appellant was properly sentenced to consecutive life sentences for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
IV. Whether the district court properly ruled on Appellant's motions for mistrial and for admission of the tape recorded confession.
In October of 1994, Vena owned and operated the Lincolnway Detail Center (Detail Center) in Cheyenne. When an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) went to the Detail Center to order an accessory for his vehicle, Vena suggested to the agent that Paul Brown (Brown), one of Vena's employees, could provide information about criminal activity in Cheyenne. Shortly after that another special agent of the ATF contacted Brown and hired him as an informant.
During the next several weeks, Brown supplied information concerning illicit firearm and narcotics activities in Cheyenne to the ATF. Between November 18, 1994 and November 21, 1994, Vena assisted Brown in making two controlled buys of narcotics for the ATF. Vena had worked extensively as an informant for several federal law enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Customs Service, and most frequently, the ATF. On November 28, 1994, Vena signed a confidential informant agreement with the ATF.
The victim was a transient who had been working at the Detail Center for Vena and using a back room at the Detail Center as his living quarters. During that month of November, the victim became aware of Brown's and Vena's work as informants for the ATF. Vena and Brown were concerned about the fact that the victim "knew too much" about their business, and they feared he might inform local narcotics and firearms dealers that Vena and Brown were working as informants. On the evening of November 28, 1994, Vena and Brown decided to kill the victim at the Detail Center.
Later that evening, Vena and Brown took a shotgun and some specially loaded shotgun shells and drove to the Detail Center. Vena waited in his office while Brown went to the back room. The victim was asleep in his sleeping bag on a cot in that room, and Brown shot him twice at close range with the shotgun, once in the chest and once in the head. Vena and Brown then took the victim's body, still in the sleeping bag, and loaded it into the trunk of the car which they had parked outside. They disposed of the body by leaving it along side the road near Nunn, Colorado.
Vena and Brown then returned to Cheyenne where they cleaned the back room of the Detail Center. Brown broke down the shotgun, and Vena and Brown concealed the shotgun parts, the left over special shells, and their bloody clothing in several places along Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie. The victim's body was found in a ditch outside of Nunn on November 30, 1994. Later on that day, two employees of the Wyoming Highway Department discovered bags of personal items and bloody clothes in two different trash barrels along Interstate 80 between Laramie and Cheyenne. Among the items found were identification cards belonging to the victim. The Wyoming Highway Patrol sent a teletype to authorities in Wyoming and Northern Colorado inquiring if a body had been discovered, and within an hour, they received a response from Weld County, Colorado, where the victim's body had been found.
Pursuing the investigation, Cheyenne police officers determined that the victim's last known residence was the back room of the Detail Center, and he was last seen there on November 28, 1994. Evidence of blood spatter was uncovered in that back room, and the officers determined that the sleeping bag in which the victim's body had been found had been his bedding. The officers also learned that Brown owned a shotgun and that Vena and Brown were seen together in a car, which Vena was driving, during the early morning hours of November 29, 1994. The officers examined the car, on December 3, 1994, and found evidence of blood in the trunk and passenger compartment. After being interviewed at the police station later that evening, Brown was arrested for the victim's murder.
The investigators then located Vena, and they advised him that Brown had been arrested as a suspect in a homicide. Vena insisted on first speaking privately with the ATF agent with whom he had been working. Vena denied shooting the victim, but he furnished the officers with a general outline of what had transpired on the evening of November 28, 1994. Vena voluntarily went with the officers to the police department where he was advised of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Vena continued to furnish further details in response to precise questions posed by the investigating officers. In an attempt to bolster his truthfulness, Vena directed the officers to various locations along Interstate 80 where he and Brown had disposed of parts of the shotgun and the remainder of the special shot shells.
The following day, December 4, 1994, Vena again was advised of his rights pursuant to the Miranda decision, and the interview by the officers continued. In the course of this interview, Vena admitted that he was involved with Brown in planning the victim's killing. After making this admission, Vena was arrested and charged with the victim's murder. Following a jury trial, Vena was found guilty on both charges, conspiracy to commit first degree murder and first degree murder. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms at the Wyoming State Penitentiary.
Vena's main claims of error relate to the voluntariness of statements he made to the ATF agent and the police officers with respect to the victim's murder. He contends that the inculpatory statements made to these officers on December 4, 1994 were not voluntary because he believed he was assisting the officers in his role as an ATF informant and the statements were induced by comments from the officers that "the only thing we're interested in * * * [is] who pulled the trigger." Vena argues that these comments implied that the sole target of their criminal investigation was the person who pulled the trigger, and therefore incorporated a reasonable assurance that his statements would not be used against him. He asserts reversible error by the district court in denying his motion to suppress the inculpatory statements arising after these assurances from the police officers, and further, that the court erroneously instructed the jury on the issue of voluntariness.
It is established firmly in Wyoming that the findings of the trial court on a motion to suppress a confession are binding unless clearly erroneous. This rule first was adopted in Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Wyo.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079, 100 S.Ct. 1031, 62 L.Ed.2d 763 (1980). In Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo.1994), we summarized the justification for the rule:
Since the district court conducts the hearing on the motion to suppress and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. State
...Snyder his Miranda advisements, Mr. Snyder acknowledged his rights, and he continued to speak with law enforcement. See Vena v. State , 941 P.2d 33, 38 (Wyo. 1997) (finding Mr. Vena's statements were voluntary in part because he was advised of his Miranda rights two times before his admissi......
-
Pena v. State, 03-13.
...P.2d at 139. "Emotionalism, confusion, and subjective perception do not necessarily invalidate a statement or confession." Vena v. State, 941 P.2d 33, 37 (Wyo.1997). The burden rests with the State to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the voluntariness of the accused's statements. ......
-
Hannon v. State
...a two-hour interrogation of a woman who was seven months pregnant and was upset and crying during the interrogation. In Vena v. State, 941 P.2d 33, 38 (Wyo.1997), however, we upheld the trial court's finding that statements were voluntary where the accused was "a 53-year-old man, long exper......
-
Snyder v. State
...Mr. Snyder his Miranda advisements, Mr. Snyder acknowledged his rights, and he continued to speak with law enforcement. See Vena v. State, 941 P.2d 33, 38 (Wyo. 1997) (finding Mr. Vena's statements were voluntary in part because he was advised of his Miranda rights two times before his admi......