State v. Fansano

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RAFFAEL FANSANO

No. E2018-00664-CCA-R9-CD

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

January 24, 2019 Session

April 24, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sullivan County

No. S65,438

William K. Rogers, Judge

The Defendant, Raffael Fansano, was indicted for aggravated rape. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession, arguing, among other things, that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda¹ rights due to his intellectual disability. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress, and the State sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision. On appeal, the State contends that the Defendant was not in custody when he made the statement at the police department and, alternatively, that the trial court erred when it determined that the Defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 9 Interlocutory Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and Julie R. Canter, Assistant District Attorney, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Andrew J. Gibbons (on appeal and at hearing), District Public Defender; and Lesley A. Tiller (on appeal), Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellee, Raffael Fansano.

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Sullivan County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of aggravated rape, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-502, which was alleged tohave occurred on August 6, 2015, in a wooded area of Domtar Park in Kingsport, Tennessee. The victim reported being raped with a stick. Upon investigation, officers noticed that the Defendant was wearing clothing covered in mud. Following initial questioning at the scene, Kingsport Police Department (KPD) Sergeant Randy Murray asked the Defendant to accompany him to the KPD for further questioning. Because the Defendant had ridden a bicycle to the park, Sergeant Murray transported the Defendant to the police station in an unmarked police car. At the police station, Sergeant Murray advised the Defendant of his Miranda rights, and the Defendant executed a written waiver of his rights. During the interview, the Defendant confessed to sexually assaulting the victim with a stick.

After indictment, the trial court ordered the Defendant to undergo a competency evaluation. On November 20, 2015, evaluators with Frontier Health Assessment and Forensic Services determined that the Defendant suffered from an "Intellectual Disability (Mental Retardation)." The evaluators concluded that the Defendant was not competent to stand trial because he lacked the "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Nonetheless, the evaluators believed that the Defendant could "possibly become competent to stand trial with further training." In addition, the evaluators found that, despite the Defendant's intellectual disability, he "was still able to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of" his actions and did not suffer from diminished capacity at the time of the offense.

The Defendant underwent competency training at Greene Valley Developmental Center. During the Defendant's initial assessment on February 18, 2016, it was noted that the Defendant was "a legally competent adult" and did not have a "conservator acting on his behalf." The Defendant was administered the standardized test, "Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendant with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)," and his total score on the test was 82%. Moreover, the evaluators noted that the Defendant "scored [four] points above the mean score . . . for individuals with intellectual disabilities who were competent to stand trial." The "Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)" was also administered to the Defendant on February 18, 2016. From this assessment, the evaluators surmised the following:

[The Defendant] demonstrated a rational understanding of the charges against him. He noted that the charges are serious and others might regard him with fear if convicted of the charges. [The Defendant] knows the possible penalty of being found guilty. He was able to articulate a clear and plausible plan for his defense. He knew the possible pleas. He understood that a plea bargain involves pleading guilty to a lesser crime to reduce thepenalty and stated that if a person is guilty, it could be a good idea. He knew the roles of the courtroom personnel.

[The Defendant] did not know the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor upon initial assessment. He did not have understanding of his rights. These results indicated that training could benefit [the Defendant.]

Competency training was conducted on February 18, 2016, and February 25, 2016. Regarding the Defendant's training sessions, the evaluators detailed as follows:

[The Defendant] does not have a driver's license and was brought to training sessions by his [s]tep-father . . . . [The Defendant] conducted himself in an appropriate and respectful manner during each session. He was prompt to appointments and effort was considered good. [The Defendant's] affect was somewhat flat, but he was articulate in responses after thoughtful consideration. There are no concerns regarding appropriate behavior during courtroom appearances. [The Defendant] reported that in stressful situations, he tends to shut down or become quiet. During his account of the day he was arrested, [the Defendant] disclosed that he felt scared and intimidated when questioned. He stated that he did not know he could request an attorney and felt that he had to talk. He wanted to go home and was told that he could go after he admitted to his crime. [The Defendant] stated that he does not like conflict and will comply when it is demanded. The [e]xaminers spent a great deal of time reviewing his legal rights. [The Defendant] stated that he was not read his rights and that he was told he was not under arrest but that he had to go to the police station in the back of the cruiser to answer questions. He was not permitted to speak with his girlfriend, Kayla. Upon reaching the station, [the Defendant] eventually confessed to the crime in order to be let go. However, at that time, he was placed under arrest and sent to jail.

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant was re-administered the CAST-MR and the CAI. According to the evaluators, the Defendant's "knowledge of Basic Legal Concepts and Understanding Case Events as measured by the CAST-MR improved after training." The Defendant's total score on the CAST-MR was now 88%. After completing the follow-up assessment, the evaluators remarked, "[The Defendant] knows to request to speak with an attorney before making admissions or participating in questioning by authorities. He knows his attorney is on his side and that the [p]rosecutor is against him." "Based on [the Defendant's] interactions, responses during training and during follow-up assessment," the evaluators recommended that the Defendant be found competent to stand trial.

After being deemed competent to stand trial, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress "[c]ertain statements [that] were taken from [him] on August 6, 2015[,]" by Sergeant Murray. Specifically, the Defendant alleged the following: 1. "Under the totality of the circumstances test, the Defendant did not waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona."; 2. "The statements are unlawful because they are involuntary."; 3. "The statements were obtained after the commencement of formal proceedings and the statements were taken in violation of the [D]efendant's right to counsel."; 4. "The statements are unlawful and therefore the evidence obtained as a result of said statements is also unlawful."; and 5. "The officer failed to fully advise the [D]efendant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona." The State filed a response on the same day as the evidentiary hearing, arguing that the Defendant, considering the totality of the circumstances, had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. In support of its argument, the State noted the following:

[A]t the time of police questioning, the [D]efendant displayed no signs of mental illness. The [D]efendant was coherent, not suffering from delusions, and agreed to speak with [Sergeant] Murray at the [KPD]. The setting in which the [D]efendant wrote his statement was not coercive or overreaching. Additionally, the [D]efendant completed High School in Gate City, Virginia and obtained a special education diploma.

On November 27, 2017, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel averred that the "burden [was] on the defense in this situation." After providing some background about the Defendant's mental health and the proceedings in this case, defense counsel argued that, based upon the Greene Valley report from the evaluators, the Defendant did not understand his Miranda rights or "the consequence of waiving those rights." The prosecutor made no opening argument "since the burden [was] on the Defendant."

The trial court noted that, previously, the Defendant "ha[d] been found to have intellectual disability. His Wechster intelligence scores [were] in the sealed record from his school.² The [D]efendant's psychological intelligence scores [were] 53 on the WISC III in 1995 and 48 in 1998."

Shannon Seaton, a senior psychological examiner for the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, testified that the two evaluators who performed the Defendant's evaluation and competency training, Leslie Jones and Deborah Morrell,...