Opinion ID: 1060569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Deleted B. Penalty Phase)

Text: I. Motion to Suppress Nine hours after his arrest on September 17, 1994, the appellant executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights and provided law enforcement officers a complete statement of his involvement in the deaths of Charles Ragland and Erica Hurd and the aggravated rape of Angela Ragland. See supra. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress this statement alleging that the statement was not knowingly and voluntarily given due to the fact that he was under the influence of crack cocaine. A hearing on the motion was heard on September 10, 1996. The evidence at the suppression motion revealed that the appellant had been smoking crack cocaine on the evening of Friday, September 16, 1994. Russell Morris, the appellant's brother, verified that, when he saw the appellant at 5:30 p.m. that evening, the appellant had informed him that he had spent $200 on crack cocaine and was going to obtain more. He also testified that the appellant appeared to be intoxicated. Next, the defense attempted to call the victim, Angela Ragland, to the stand to testify regarding the appellant's appearance and actions during the commission of these offenses. The State objected on the basis that Angela Ragland was not in any position to know anything about the condition that [the appellant] was in at the time that the statement was given. The trial court sustained the State's objection on the same ground, expressly finding that Ms. Ragland had no knowledge of the appellant's state of mind or whether he was under the influence of cocaine when he gave his statement some fourteen hours after he committed these offenses. Dr. Robert Parker was called as an expert witness on the effects of crack cocaine on the human body. See supra. Specifically, Dr. Parker testified that mania was present during the crash phase when the appellant's statement was given. He explained that, during the crash phase, one's judgment was impaired and usually was accompanied with confusion and suicidal thoughts. Moreover, crash phase symptoms could cause one not to care about or understand the consequences of their actions. At the conclusion of Dr. Parker's testimony, the defense again attempted to introduce the testimony of Angela Ragland. However, the trial court refused to admit such testimony finding that there's been no proof here presented, notwithstanding the use of cocaine, that he, because of the ingestion of cocaine, didn't understand what he was doing when he gave his statement. There's been no proof of that. [1] The defense then offered to call the appellant to testify regarding how [the drugs] affected his body, ... the way he was ... acting, how he was feeling about those things at the time he gave his statement and before that. Defense counsel asked the court to limit the examination of the appellant to these matters and to prohibit questioning as to the facts of what happened on this alleged incident about the killings. The trial court refused this request, finding that there was no reason to prohibit the State from eliciting the contents of the statement on cross-examination and how it reflects the truth of what occurred. Moreover, the trial court concluded that the appellant can't exercise [his] Fifth Amendment privilege on examination of things which are relative to the things that he said.... After this ruling, the defense elected not to call the appellant to the stand. [2] The defense next called Officer James Golden to the stand. Officer Golden testified that he first encountered the appellant between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. on the morning of September 17, 1994. At this time, the appellant appeared normal to [him]. Later that afternoon, approximately 5:20 p.m., Golden, accompanied by Officer Willis, advised the appellant of his Miranda rights, witnessed the appellant waive these rights, and proceeded to obtain a confession from the appellant. Investigator Golden testified that, at the time the statement was obtained, the appellant did not appear to be under the influence of crack cocaine. No further proof was presented. Based on this evidence, the trial court denied the appellant's motion to suppress. The trial court stated: ... The basic premise here is that when he gave the statement, that statement was not the product of a free mind and rational intellect. ... ... The only proof that we have is from Officer Golden who said he was normal. ... Now to adopt your idea, I would have to say that the rule of law is that you could prove that a person has had drugs. There's an inference that he didn't know that he couldn't give a rational statement. There is no such inference that's drawn from the proof that a person has used drugs that they can't give a good statement. You've got to first give me some proof that he didn't give a good statement. ... ... Well, what you've done is given me the corroborative proof, but you don't have any proof You have zero proof that the statement ... was the product of an irrational mind. You have zero proof of that. The appellant now contests the ruling of the trial court arguing (1) that the trial court erred in refusing to permit Angela Ragland to testify at the hearing and (2) that the testimony of Dr. Parker was sufficient to show that the appellant was in the crash phase of cocaine intoxication, suffering from impaired judgment, confusion, and suicidal thoughts, at the time his statement was given to the police.