Opinion ID: 724858
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claims of trial errors.

Text: 45 Our conclusions regarding the defective, but not fatal, indictment and the appropriate remedy for the flawed assimilation do not end the discussion. We still must determine whether the convictions can stand in the face of the other trial errors alleged by the defendants. After a thorough review of the record, we find no reason to reverse the Lewises' convictions. We will, however, discuss the Lewises' specific contentions of error below. 46
47 Both Lewises claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on Jadasha. Mr. Lewis claims that there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that Mrs. Lewis had a plausible motive (i.e., jealousy) to harm Jadasha and that she delivered the murderous blows to Jadasha; whereas, the evidence merely places him on the premises on the day of the murder. Mr. Lewis lists several witnesses who testified as to Mrs. Lewis's jealousy and abuse of Jadasha. Only Mrs. Lewis and her two daughters testified that Mr. Lewis hit Jadasha. Not even they testified that he hit Jadasha on the head. Moreover, the pathologist testified that he had to dissect Jadasha's body to see the extent of the bruising, and that the visible marks cannot be characterized as great bodily harm. 48 Similarly, Mrs. Lewis admits to disciplining Jadasha, but denies that the discipline resulted in significant injury. She points primarily to testimony of the pathologist in support of her insufficient evidence claim. He testified that (1) the hemorrhages and bruises on Jadasha's head would not have been visible through her scalp and hair, (2) the deep bruises evident on the pre-autopsy and autopsy photographs of Jadasha were not visible at the time she died and had to work their way to the surface of her skin, (3) the body bruises might not be visible if Jadasha was wearing clothes, (4) there was no evidence that the brain hematomas were directly related to the contusions found on Jadasha's scalp, and (5) the contusions and deep hemorrhages were caused by objects like an adult's hand; one would not expect a fly swatter or 3/8' diameter switch 12 to inflict these injuries. Mrs. Lewis also argues that none of the many witnesses called by the government or the defendants testified that they saw Mrs. Lewis strike Jadasha or use unusual or excessively cruel discipline measures on her. She further asserts that even though [Jadasha] died, that is not in and of itself murder. 49 The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the government's evidence is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Stedman, 69 F.3d 737, 739 (5th Cir.1995); and United States v. Ruggiero, 56 F.3d 647, 654 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 486, 133 L.Ed.2d 413 (1995). We must review the evidence in the light favorable to the guilty verdict, that is, in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1054 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 167, 133 L.Ed.2d 109 (1995). Further, we must consider all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id. 50 Under Revised Statute 14:30A(5), the government had to prove that the Lewises killed Jadasha with specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a victim under the age of twelve. Further, the government had to satisfy its burden of proving that the Lewises were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; proving only that the Lewises could be guilty is insufficient to satisfy this burden. United States v. Sacerio, 952 F.2d 860, 863 (5th Cir.1992). Because Jadasha's age and death are undisputed, we proceed to the issue of the defendants' intent. 51 We find that the record fully supports the defendants' convictions. Their arguments ignore the vast amount of circumstantial evidence which was sufficient to allow a jury to infer that they were guilty of murdering Jadasha. In the defendants' statements given contemporaneously with the investigation into Jadasha's death both admitted to beating Jadasha numerous times within the twenty-four hours preceding her death. Mr. Lewis shook Jadasha several times and hit her with his hand or a fly swatter, while Mrs. Lewis hit her with a fly swatter, coat hanger, and switches. Further, because they spent the day together, the Lewises were aware of the beatings administered by the other that day. A military police officer testified that soon after learning that Jadasha was dead Mr. Lewis told the military police officers I shouldn't have done it; I shouldn't have spanked her like that. Other military police officers testified that Mrs. Lewis made spontaneous statements that she only had to whip [Jadasha] three times that day and she shouldn't have hit the child. If the child would be okay, then she would not punish her again. In addition, both related a version of an incident in which Mr. Lewis was beating Jadasha, she ran in her room or was instructed to go to her room, and then Mrs. Lewis called her from the room, wherein Mr. Lewis beat Jadasha again. Further, during the ride to the correctional facility Mr. Lewis was overheard asking investigator McCormick how pleading guilty to a charge relating to homicide would affect his military career. 52 Testimony from a paramedic, emergency personnel, a pediatrician, and a forensic pathologist attested to outward signs that demonstrated the extent of Jadasha's injuries. Testimony indicates that flesh wounds on Jadasha were still oozing blood when she arrived in the emergency room. The paramedic describes a mark on Jadasha's forehead, a swollen lip, blood matted in her hair, blood on the top of her left ear, skin missing from her left ear, and marks on her body from a fly swatter or a coat hanger. The injuries on her body were consistent with an adult's open hand, a fly swatter, a hanger, and a curtain rod. 53 The pediatrician's testimony corroborated the testimony of the paramedic and emergency room personnel. Additionally, he said that Jadasha's abdomen was tense, indicating the possibility of abdominal trauma. The cartilage appeared to be fractured in Jadasha's left ear. Jadasha had suffered multiple repeated trauma to her body. Moreover, the pediatrician agreed that the injuries qualified as great serious injuries. 54 Similarly, the forensic pathologist's description of the crime scene showed that the blood of the slaughter remained in the house. Several blood drops appeared all over the floor of the living room and on the floor of Jadasha's room. Blood was found on pieces of a curtain rod found crumpled in the Lewises' garbage can. Dried blood spots were visible on the sofa, on the window curtail, on the closet doors in the hallway, in the master bedroom closet, and on walls. One blood spot on the wall looked like a child's smeared hand print. Blood appeared on articles of clothing and blankets. In addition to the blood spots, the pathologist found several pieces of broken twigs in Jadasha's room, two unusually thick and bulky fly swatters, which he said didn't look like what you would think a fly swatter would look like. He also found a clump of hair that appeared to be pulled out of the scalp. 55 The forensic pathologist counted over two hundred injuries on Jadasha's body caused by non-accidental injury. He matched the shape of Jadasha's injuries with the weapons the Lewises admitted using to beat Jadasha. He also testified regarding the nature of the old and new wounds covering her body. In great detail he described the raw sores, lacerations, and callouses evident on both sides of Jadasha's buttocks, which were caused from chronic, repetitive injuries. The pathologist testified that (with the exception of some areas on the buttocks, the left ear, and scars from a hot liquid burn) the injuries to Jadasha's body were inflicted within twenty-four hours of her death because there was recent bleeding in the underlying tissue. So much blood was redirected into the tissues underlying the injuries that Jadasha's circulatory system was missing one-third to two-third of the blood normally found in the circulatory system. The pathologist explained that an adult's hand, rather than the twigs, coat hanger, or fly swatter, probably caused the deeper hemorrhages. He said the massive hemorrhaging could have eventually caused Jadasha's death; however, he said Jadasha died from cerebral edema (brain swelling), caused by a blow to her head. The pathologist conservatively counted nine head injuries, any one of which was sufficient to cause Jadasha's death. He said that the amount of force necessary to cause the brain to swell is equivalent to dropping a child on its head from a height higher than three feet onto an uncarpeted floor. Further, the pathologist discussed contusions on Jadasha's forehead, on both cheeks, and over the bridge on her nose as well as scratches and cuts in her face. He also said that several coat hanger type abrasions appeared in Jadasha's face. 56 Neighbors and friends of the Lewises also attested to the history of abuse to which Jadasha was subjected, primarily by Mrs. Lewis. For example, Amber Nantz, who visited the Lewises testified that she observed injuries on Jadasha on several occasions. When Mrs. Lewis explained in Jadasha's presence how a large black eye occurred, Jadasha kind of had a funny expression on her fac[e], a funny look on her face that she didn't know what Debra was talking about. Mrs. Nantz also related that Mrs. Lewis withheld food from Jadasha for three days to teach her a lesson, and during that time she would intentionally eat food in front of Jadasha to see if Jadasha would admit to her hunger. Numerous other witnesses corroborated the signs of injury and abuse inflicted on Jadasha. Another person witnessed Jadasha with a black eye. Several attested to seeing the burn on Jadasha's ear and hearing of the three days of starvation. Most indicated that Debra voluntarily spoke of disciplining Jadasha, and they consistently indicated that the Lewises said they disciplined Jadasha by spanking her with their hands or a fly swatter. A few remembered Debra stating that if she didn't stop whipping Jadasha she would hurt her or kill her and she was going to let James whip [Jadasha because] [s]he wasn't going to go to jail for killing that child. One witness testified that when Mrs. Lewis discussed beating Jadasha, her demeanor demonstrated that Mrs. Lewis thought the disciplining was funny. She also said Mrs. Lewis told her Jadasha had sores on her when she came to live with the Lewises and it therefore was necessary to bathe her in bleach. Another witness testified that she saw Mrs. Lewis strike Jadasha and burst her lip. At least one witness reported the starvation incident to the sergeant, and a few suggested to the Lewises that they needed counseling. 57 After viewing the evidence in favor of the government, we find the record abundant with evidence to prove that the Lewises had specific intent to inflict great bodily harm upon Jadasha and that they aided and abetted each other in the beatings. There was sufficient evidence regarding the events of the day for the jury to conclude that the Lewises were aware that the other was beating Jadasha and that they assisted each other in some capacity in the beatings. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis both beat Jadasha repeatedly throughout the day of her death. There is no testimony that any other person contributed to the beatings Jadasha endured the day of her death. Without question because of the force accompanying their blows and the numerous beatings administered with that amount of force, the Lewises intended to cause Jadasha serious bodily harm. 58 The Lewises claim that they could not have known the effect of their blows because the deep bruises did not surface until later. They also say that they could not have seen the bruises through her clothes. We find this reasoning implausible and disingenuous. First, there was blood visible on Jadasha, her clothes, the walls, floors, window curtain, and the instruments used to beat Jadasha. Some of Jadasha's injuries still oozed blood when she reached the emergency room. The jury could infer that a blow from an adult to a forty-two pound four-year-old with enough force to draw blood capable of leaving the trail described above comes with specific intent to inflict great bodily harm. 59 Second, Jadasha had several old injuries on her body, especially on the cheeks of her buttocks. The Lewises had proof that the force of their blows would produce injury to Jadasha. This proof did not deter their beatings; instead, they administered many more blows of equal or greater force. We find that the Lewises did not have to see the recently created bruises to know that their blows were in fact causing serious internal injuries. Further, testimony revealed that the body blows would have caused Jadasha's death if the head injuries had not killed her. The jury could conclude that non-accidental blows of this quantity and intensity on a forty-two pound four-year-old from an adult could only come with the specific intent to inflict serious bodily harm on the child. 13 Likewise, the jury could find that blows from an adult to the abdomen of a child of this age and size came with like intent. 60 Finally, the Lewises struck Jadasha on the head and caused her brain to swell. Testimony from the pathologist clarified the significance of this type of head injury. The jury reasonably could deduce that a non-accidental blow to a four-year-old's head with force greater than a three-foot fall can only come with specific intent to cause serious bodily harm. 61 We conclude that there was more than enough evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Lewis possessed specific intent to inflict great bodily harm on Jadasha. We reject the Lewises' arguments that the evidence was insufficient; the evidence here allows more than an inference that the defendants beat Jadasha mercilessly and repeatedly throughout the day on her head and body, using far more force that would be acceptable to discipline a four-year-old child. Thus, the Lewises' convictions for first degree murder under Louisiana law could not be reversed on this ground. 62
63 The Lewises argue that the prejudicial effect of the photographs outweighed their probative value. Additionally, Mr. Lewis asserts that the autopsy photos, which were unusually gruesome and inflammatory, were unfair because the dissections depicted the extent of the bruising, which he could not have known prior to the autopsy. 64 We review the admissibility of photographic evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Follin, 979 F.2d 369, 375 (5th Cir.1992). We find that the district court properly weighed the probative value against the prejudicial effect when evaluating the admissibility of the photographs. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. The court found the photos relevant to the issue of the defendants' intent and the issue regarding absence of accident. We agree that the photos are relevant for these reasons. Gruesome photographs are relevant when they establish an element of the crime charged. United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. Unit B Sept. 1981); United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862, 100 S.Ct. 128, 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979); and United States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467, 476 (5th Cir.1977). We also agree with the government that under the facts of this case the photos were relevant to counter claims that the Lewises' employed normal disciplinary measures. The extensive bruising divulges the excessive force behind the Lewises' supposedly disciplinary blows. The photos are the best means of conveying to the jury the force behind the blows. 65 Further, we find that the potential prejudice was consciously minimized here. The district court avoided duplication and limited the prejudicial effect of the photos by requiring the government to reduce the number of photos to be shown to the jury. Of the approximately 130 photos, the government entered only 16 into evidence. In another child abuse case resulting in death, we commented that the photos of the child's lacerated heart 66 had the potential to inflame the jury, but we consider it no more inflammatory than photographs that portray this sort of death suffered by the victim in this or any other case where the circumstances of the death are at issue. United States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467, 476 (5th Cir.1977). The photograph, here, was essential to the government's case if it was to meet its burden of showing that appellant brought cruel and excessive physical force to bear on her child. 67 Bowers, 660 F.2d at 529. Thus, the district court acted well within its discretion when allowing the government to present the photos to the jury. 68
69 The Lewises argue that the district court erred by overruling their objections to the adequacy of the advice of rights given to them when they gave statements to investigators. Mr. Lewis asserts that he was not informed that he had a right to a private attorney. Mrs. Lewis claims that she was not advised of her rights until six hours after her initial detention at the hospital, that because of her emotional state she could not comprehend the severity of the situation, that the length of time to give the statement demonstrates the presence of coercion, that she believed the statement had to be given before she could see her son and Jadasha's body, and that she failed to understand the warnings given. 70 The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630-31, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) established the warnings that a defendant must receive in order for his statement to be admissible at trial. The defendant is free to waive the rights conveyed in the warnings if the waiver is done (1) voluntarily and (2) knowingly and intelligently. United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 941, 115 S.Ct. 346, 130 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994). 71 In the present case, the district court held a suppression hearing wherein he heard live testimony from investigators and Mrs. Lewis regarding the warnings given to the defendants. The testimony indicates that the Lewises each received a form containing the customary Miranda warnings. The district court found that the military form given to Mr. Lewis adequately apprised him of his rights and allowed him to knowingly waive his rights. Mrs. Lewis received the FBI Miranda warnings form, which she initialed. Additionally, the district court questioned Mrs. Lewis regarding her statements. 14 The court concluded that Mrs. Lewis understood that she was waiving her rights and voluntarily waived the rights after being adequately advised by an investigator. The district court admitted the statements into evidence after making these determinations. 72 The district court saw the live testimony and was in a position to factor body language into its credibility determinations. Accordingly, with the exception of the voluntary issue, we must accept the district court's factual findings regarding the interrogations unless the findings are clearly erroneous. United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1031, 115 S.Ct. 610, 130 L.Ed.2d 520 (1994). We cannot say that these findings are clearly erroneous based upon the record before us. 73 The issue of voluntariness is a legal question subject to de novo review. Andrews, 22 F.3d at 1340 n. 12. A waiver is voluntary when it is the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Id. at 1337. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Lewises waived their rights because of intimidation, coercion, or deception. We cannot say that the district court erred in denying the Lewises' motions to suppress their statements. 74
75 Mrs. Lewis argues that she suffered from Battered Women's Syndrome which diminished her capacity to develop specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on Jadasha or to aid and abet Mr. Lewis to do the same. We concluded above that the government presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find that Mrs. Lewis had specific intent to inflict great bodily harm on Jadasha. The jury heard and evaluated the testimony regarding Battered Women's Syndrome. The jury chose not to believe that the Syndrome affected her ability to develop the intent necessary to commit murder. We find no basis in the record to disturb the jury's credibility choices. See United States v. Garcia, 86 F.3d 394, 398 (5th Cir.1996) (noting that the appellate court must accept the credibility choices supporting the verdict); and United States v. Straach, 987 F.2d 232, 237 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that the appellate court cannot weigh and assess the credibility of the witnesses). 76 Based on our evaluations of the record, we find no merit to any of the Lewises' evidentiary claims of error. Therefore, we will not compel the government to waste time and resources reindicting the Lewises, duplicating the trial, presenting the same sufficient evidence, and proving the same elements where the jury has already spoken loudly, clearly, and correctly. The jury found the Lewises guilty and, under the circumstances of this case, a new trial would not change this.