Title: State v. Coleman
Citation: 395 So. 2d 704
Docket Number: 80-KA-1698
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: March 2, 1981

395 So. 2d 704 (1981) STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny Lee COLEMAN. No. 80-KA-1698. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 2, 1981. *705 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., John Sinquefield, Kay Kirkpatrick, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee. Andrew Jack Bennett, Jr., Bennett &amp; McLaughlin, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant. LEMMON, Justice.[*] The sole issue presented by this appeal from a conviction of attempted aggravated rape is the admissibility of defendant's confession. Defendant, an 18-year old man, broke into an L.S.U. coed's apartment on July 31, 1976. He stabbed her pet dog, ripped out her telephone, and forced her with a knife into a bedroom, where he raped her. He than ransacked her apartment, looking for money and jewelry. Before leaving, he again raped the victim. *706 Police investigators arrested defendant on the morning of August 16, 1976 for a series of rapes, one of which resulted in the death of the victim. Following his arrest, defendant made a series of confessions, including the confession challenged in this case. He was indicted for multiple counts of rape and was convicted. That conviction was reversed because of the trial court's failure to sever the various counts and to require separate trials. State v. Coleman, 369 So. 2d 1286 (La.1979). Defendant was retried on this count alone, and after being convicted, he was sentenced to serve 50 years imprisonment at hard labor.[1] The sole attack on the admissibility of the confession is based on the contention that defendant did not have the intellectual capacity to discern the meaning of the Miranda warnings and to choose knowingly between silence and speech. There are no complaints of police brutality, police promises or police conduct designed to overcome a suspect's will and to produce a confession which is not the voluntary product of his own choice.[2] When the issue on appeal is whether an accused's level of intellectual disability precluded him from effectively understanding the essential nature of his rights to silence and counsel and of the consequences of his speech, much weight is accorded to the trial court's assessment. State v. Trudell, 350 So. 2d 658 (La.1977); State v. White, 329 So. 2d 738 (La.1976). Here, defendant makes no contention that an improper legal standard was applied by the trial court, but contends only that those standards were incorrectly applied under the facts of this case. Hence, we are reviewing only the application of well-settled principles. See Cooper v. Griffin, 455 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Glover, 596 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979); State v. Glover, 343 So. 2d 118 (La.1977). The testimony of two psychiatrists, a psychologist, the two interrogating officers, and the defendant himself was presented at the original hearing on the motion to suppress in 1977. After this court remanded the case for separate trials of each count and for reconsideration of the confession's admissibility, the trial judge conducted a new hearing on the motion to suppress, at which the parties introduced by stipulation all of the evidence taken on the original hearing. The trial judge then undertook another review of that evidence and listened to a tape recording of defendant's confession in its entirety, concluding that defendant, despite his low level of intellectual capacity, had the ability to understand his rights and to understand the significance of his decision and to speak and admit his wrongdoing. In denying the motion to suppress, the judge rendered the following reasons for judgment: We cannot find that the trial court erred in reaching that conclusion. Defendant was an 18-year old who had gone to the tenth grade. He stated in his confession that he made B's and C's in school and that he could read and write. While the psychiatrists and psychologist diagnosed his condition as mild to moderate mental retardation, the officers who questioned him believed that he was aware of his rights and of the consequences of choosing to talk about his crimes. The trial judge, who observed *709 defendant as he testified at the hearing, also concluded that he could appreciate the import of the warnings given by the police and was aware of the consequences of speaking about his crime without the aid of counsel. Defendant argues, however, that two of the experts opined he was not capable of "intelligently waiving" his rights. We note that one admitted defendant may have been "malingering" during his I.Q. test, while the other admitted defendant could understand the warnings, but questioned whether defendant could appreciate the serious consequences of "waiving" his rights. The opinions of experts on the question of "waiver" of constitutional rights may be helpful, but are certainly not binding on the trial court. The decision on the validity of a waiver is ultimately one for the court. Experts in psychiatric medicine or psychology can give opinions on an accused's mental ability to perform certain functions, but the court must decide whether the accused, with the described mental ability, has the capacity to stand trial or the capacity to waive rights. The concept of "knowing" and "intelligent" waiver is one which our jurisprudence has developed. See U.S. v. Glover, above; State v. Trudell, above. There is no controlling psychiatric principle. See State v. Bennett, 345 So. 2d 1129 (La.1977), in which this court cautioned trial courts not to base judgments regarding capacity to stand trial only on conclusory opinions of experts unsupported by enumerated factors. Just as in cases in which the accused's capacity to stand trial is at issue, the trial court's judgment must be accorded much deference in cases involving an accused's capacity to waive rights.[3] See State v. Rochon, 393 So. 2d 1224 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, 393 So. 2d 670 (La.1980). After reviewing the record of the hearing on the motion to suppress, we conclude the evidence supports the trial court's determination that defendant knowingly waived his right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, we have reviewed the tape recording of defendant's confession. The interrogating officers did everything possible to inform defendant of his constitutional rights and to explain that he did not have to give a statement and that he was entitled to have a lawyer advise him free of charge. Under these circumstances, in which any person who understands street terms had to know he did not have to talk about the crime, and in which the confession was clearly voluntary, we conclude the privilege against self-incrimination was not violated. The motion to suppress defendant's confession was properly denied. The conviction and sentence are affirmed. [*] Judges Guidry, Foret and Laborde of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, participated in this decision as associate justices ad hoc, joined by Chief Justice Dixon and Associate Justices Marcus, Blanche and Lemmon. [1] Prior to this trial the count was amended to charge attempted aggravated rape. Because the United States Supreme Court had declared the death penalty for aggravated rape unconstitutional in Selman v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 906, 96 S. Ct. 3214, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1212 (1976), defendant could only be sentenced to the most serious penalty for a lesser included offense. See State v. Lee, 340 So. 2d 180 (La.1976). [2] The state is required to prove that a confession was voluntarily given after full compliance with the warnings required by Miranda and by La.Const. Art. I, § 13 (1974). State v. Glover, above; R.S. 15:451; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). See also C.Cr.P. art. 703. The trial judge must find that the state carried its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Welch, 337 So. 2d 1114 (La.1976). [3] Of course, the cases concerning capacity to stand trial involve a trial court's evaluation of the present mental status of the defendant, while the determination of capacity to waive rights involves a trial court's evaluation of the defendant's present mental capabilities as a method of ascertaining his mental capacity at the time of the interrogation.