 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guillory3/11/1998
endant does not present any additional evidence on this issue after the pre-trial ruling, the issue can be rejected on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Regan, 601 So.2d 5 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 815 (La. 1993); State v. Wright, 564 So.2d 1269 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1989). Judicial efficiency demands that this court accord great deference to its pretrial decision unless it is apparent that the determination was patently erroneous and produced unjust results. Decuir, 599 So.2d at 360. State v. Magee, 93-643 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94); 643 So.2d 497.
There was a pretrial suppression hearing on the issue of the effect of the Defendant's cocaine intoxication upon his ability to knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights and give a confession to the police. The only additional evidence presented at trial was the testimony of Dr. Sarah DeLand and the testimony of Dr. Earl Soileau, Jr., both expert witnesses who previously testified at the pretrial suppression hearing. The Defendant presented Dr. Sarah DeLand, a forensic psychiatrist, who met with the Defendant in the Calcasieu Correctional Center and viewed the videotape of his confession. Dr. DeLand gave an estimate that the Defendant had ingested one gram of cocaine before he gave his confession. Dr. DeLand testified that the Defendant was suffering cocaine intoxication at the time he gave the videotaped confession and that he was unable to knowingly waive his constitutional rights. The State presented the expert testimony of Dr. Earl John Soileau, Jr., a doctor specializing in addiction medicine, who testified that he viewed the videotaped confession and he did not see obvious signs of cocaine intoxication.
The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the law concerning a claim of intoxication in the case of State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332 (La. 1980):
Before a confession can be introduced in evidence, the state has the burden of affirmatively proving that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. La.R.S. 15:451. It must also be established that an accused who makes a confession during custodial interrogation was first advised of his Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court observed: "By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Spontaneous and voluntary statements, not given as a result of police interrogation or compelling influence, are admissible in evidence' without Miranda warnings even where a defendant is in custody. State v. George, 371 So.2d 762 (La. 1979); State v. Thornton, 351 So.2d 480 (La. 1977); State v. Sockwell, 337 So.2d 451 (La. 1976); State v. Thomas, 310 So.2d 517 (La. 1975); State v. Higginbotham, 261 La. 983, 261 So.2d 638 (1972); State v. Hall, 257 La. 253, 242 So.2d 239 (1970). Where the free and voluntary nature of a confession is challenged on the ground that the accused was intoxicated at the time of interrogation, the confession will be rendered inadmissible only when the intoxication is of such a degree as to negate defendant's comprehension and to render him unconscious of the consequences of what he is saying. Whether intoxication exists and is of a degree sufficient to vitiate the voluntariness of the confession are questions of fact. State v. Rankin, 357 So.2d 803 (La. 1978). The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial Judge. His Conclusions on the credibility and weight of the testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|