State v. Williams

651 S.W.3d 234

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Lonnie Leroy WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD 37221

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, In Division.

Filed: September 6, 2022

JEDD C. SCHNEIDER, Columbia, Mo, for Appellant.

NATHAN J. AQUINO, Jefferson City, Mo, for Respondent.

DON E. BURRELL, J.

Lonnie Leroy Williams ("Defendant") challenges his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree murder and one count of unlawful use of a weapon for fatally stabbing MacKenna Milhon ("Victim") on or about December 20, 2019. See sections 565.020 and 571.015.¹

In two points relied on, Defendant claims the circuit court erred in: (1) overruling his motion to suppress "statements" and in admitting into evidence the video recording of his interrogation by the police, in which he confessed to the murder; and (2) overruling his objection and refusing to grant a "mistrial" when the prosecutor in voir dire told the first of two groups of potential jurors that the case they would be sitting on was not a death-penalty case. Because neither challenge was preserved for appeal, we affirm.

Background²

Surveillance cameras showed Defendant with Victim at various gas stations in Springfield on the evening of December 19, 2019. Victim's mother ("Mother") last spoke to Victim by phone at around 2:15 a.m. the next morning. After that one phone call, Mother called the police when she was unable to reach Victim again.

Defendant lived with his girlfriend, Olivia Vega ("Girlfriend"), and they had argued earlier in the evening of December 19, 2019. Defendant left the house and would not answer Girlfriend's calls or texts. When Defendant returned home, he was upset and had blood on his hands. He told Girlfriend that he had killed someone, and he started crying. Defendant then told Girlfriend that he had killed "Kenna" during "a robbery gone wrong[.]" Defendant also motioned to his throat and said that "all of this was gone."³

Girlfriend also saw blood stains in Defendant's car, a set of Defendant's clothes in its trunk, including boots that had blood on them, and that Defendant had a knife inside his backpack. Within a couple of weeks, police located Victim's body outside the city limits in an area cluttered with a lot of trash and other debris.

GPS data showed that around 2:30 a.m. on December 20, 2019, Defendant's car had been near the area in which Victim's body had been found, and the police interviewed Defendant on January 2, 2020.⁴ The approximately five-hour interview was videotaped, and it took place at the jail in which Defendant was being held on an unrelated matter. During that interview, Defendant eventually confessed to taking part in Victim's murder. A court-edited version of the recorded interview was introduced into evidence as State's Exhibit 201, and it was played for the jury over Defendant's objection that incorporated the arguments he had made before trial in support of his pretrial motion to suppress Defendant's statements. The objection was to the admission of the exhibit "in its entirety."

We will recite additional evidence, and the attorneys’ interactions with the circuit court at trial, as needed to address Defendant's points on appeal.

Analysis

Point 1 – Suppression of Evidence

Involuntarily obtained confessions are barred from being admissible at trial by the Due Process Clause. State v. Faruqi , 344 S.W.3d 193, 203 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing Ashcraft v. Tennessee , 322 U.S. 143, 155, 64 S.Ct. 921, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944) ). "The test for whether a confession is voluntary is whether the totality of the circumstances created a physical or psychological coercion sufficient to deprive the defendant of a free choice to admit, deny, or refuse to answer the examiner's questions." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). "In determining whether a defendant's confession resulted from improper coercion, this Court considers a range of factors relating to the defendant, including his or her age, experience, intelligence, gender, lack of education, infirmity, and unusual susceptibility to coercion." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). "The Court also considers whether the defendant was advised of his rights, the length of the detention, the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning, and the use of coercive techniques such as deprivation of food or sleep." Id.

State v. Hines , No. SD 37164, 648 S.W.3d 822, 829–30 (Mo. App. S.D. May 26, 2022).

"Our review of the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's ruling." Id. at 829 (quoting State v. Norman , 431 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) ). We will reverse the circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress only if it is clearly erroneous. Howland , 576 S.W.3d at 621. We review questions of law de novo. Id.

Here, we set forth Defendant's multifarious first point verbatim to fully capture its unrefined, unlimited scope.

The [circuit] court clearly erred overruling [Defendant]’s motion to suppress statements and abused its discretion admitting Exhibit 201, the January 2, 2020, interrogation video and all associated evidence , in derogation of [Defendant]’s rights against self-incrimination, to a fair trial, and to due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10, 18(a), and 19 of the Missouri Constitution, in that, where [Defendant] was interrogated for nearly five hours by two officers, where a high level of emotional intensity pervaded almost the entirety of that interrogation, and where [officer] Williams made numerous appeals to [Defendant]’s conscience having knowledge of [Defendant]’s particular susceptibility to such appeals, [Defendant]’s statements were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under the totality of circumstances; because his confession is powerful sui generis evidence of guilt, the [circuit] court's admission of [Defendant]’s January 2, 2020, interrogation video deprived him of a fair trial.

(Emphasis added.)

In like manner to his point on appeal -- which fails to identify a single allegedly incriminating statement made by Defendant during his interview or indicate what "all associated evidence" might be -- we next present his pretrial Motion to Suppress, which did not assert a single case-specific allegation of police coercion:

COMES NOW DEFENDANT, by and through counsel, and moves this court to suppress evidence of the statements taken from Defendant by law enforcement agents which Defendant believes the State intends to introduce into evidence against him at trial. The statements were obtained in violation of Defendant's rights against self-incrimination, right to counsel, and due process of law as guaranteed by Article I, Sections 10, 18(a), and 19 of the Missouri Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As grounds, Defendant states:

A. Defendant's statements were not voluntary in that:

1. The length in nature of Defendant's custody and the duration and nature of Defendant's interrogation and the conditions under which it was conducted, were inherently coercive as applied to a person of Defendant's age, education, background, and physical and mental condition at the time such interrogation occurred.

2. The statement is not an accurate reflection and record of the conversations between Defendant and the interrogating officials.

3. Defendant was subjected to mental and physical duress prior to and during the interrogation, and this statement obtained was the direct result of threats and promises made to Defendant prior to and during the interrogation by the interrogating officials.

4. Defendant's repeated requests to speak with an attorney, made both prior to and contemporaneously with the interrogation, were ignored by the interrogating officials.

5. Defendant was not presented to a judicial officer "as soon as practicable," and said it [sic] statements was obtained prior to presentation to a judicial officer.

B. Defendant's statements were made without [Defendant] first being advised of his constitutional rights, to wit:

1. Defendant was not advised in clear and unequivocal terms of him [sic] right to remain silent prior to her [sic] interrogation.

2. Defendant was not advised that anything he said could and would be used against him in court.

3. Defendant was not advised of his rights to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present with him during the interrogation.

4. Defendant was not advised that a lawyer would be appointed for him if he was indigent.

5. Defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, or his right to have counsel appointed for him.

6. The interrogation by police officers did not cease when [Defendant] indicated he wished to remain silent.

C. Any alleged statements are the result of an unlawful arrest in violation of Defendant's rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Court to suppress any evidence concerning any oral, written or recorded statements alleged to have been made to law enforcement officials or other witnesses in connection with this case, for a hearing and for such other relief as this Court deems just.

Defense counsel's objection at trial to the admission of State's Exhibit 201 in its entirety was, "Judge, I previously made a pretrial motion [the Motion to Suppress] that went to this exhibit. I would renew that now and object on those grounds previously stated to the Court to this exhibit in its entirety." Presented with a general objection to the admission of the entire exhibit, the circuit court did not err in summarily overruling it. See State v. Goins , 306 S.W.3d 639, 645-46 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (" ‘objection to any hearsay...