815 S.E.2d 690
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- In January 2013, Maria and Jose Flores were murdered in their home in a gang-related attack; victims were innocent occupants of a residence once lived in by a rival gang member (“Sancho”).
- Defendant Jonathan Santillan (15 at the time) was linked to the shooters by witness identification, ballistics (AK-47 and .45 casings with matching scratch marks), and weapons found in an attic where he was arrested.
- Santillan was interrogated in four videotaped interviews on January 15, 2013; he initially waived rights, later invoked his right to counsel, officers left, and subsequently he waived again and made statements; between invocation and second waiver Chief Johnson spoke to Santillan briefly outside the room.
- At trial, the court admitted Santillan’s videotaped statements and a sketch he made, and admitted pre-shooting rap lyrics found in his notebook; jury convicted on all counts and court imposed two consecutive life-without-parole terms plus other sentences.
- On appeal Santillan argued (1) his Second waiver was involuntary because officers (including Chief Johnson) communicated with him after he invoked counsel; (2) admission of rap lyrics was erroneous; (3) ineffective assistance for failure to object to lyrics; and (4) sentencing findings for LWOP were insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Santillan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver after invocation was voluntary given officer communications (esp. Chief Johnson) | Waiver was voluntary; trial court concluded statements were voluntary and defendant cognitively aware | Waiver involuntary because officer spoke to him after he invoked counsel and before re-waiver, and other coercive factors (age, fatigue, interrogation tactics) | Remanded: trial court’s suppression order lacked findings addressing the Chief Johnson exchange; remand for further findings and new suppression hearing on voluntariness |
| Admissibility of rap lyrics (Rules 401/403/404(b)) | Lyrics relevant and admissible; counsel did not contemporaneously object | Lyrics irrelevant, highly prejudicial character evidence | No plain error: given other strong evidence, defendant failed to show probable impact on verdict |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to lyrics | Not addressed on direct appeal | Counsel ineffective for not objecting | Dismissed without prejudice on direct appeal; preserved for M.A.R. because record doesn’t show strategic basis |
| Sufficiency of findings for consecutive LWOP sentences under §§15A-1340.19A-C | Trial court complied | Trial court failed to state evidence supporting or opposing mitigating factors as required | Vacated LWOP sentences and remanded for new sentencing findings/hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (establishes standard of appellate review of suppression findings)
- State v. Quick, 226 N.C. App. 541 (statements by officer after invocation can constitute further questioning and require suppression)
- State v. Fisher, 158 N.C. App. 133 (factors for whether police conduct was likely to elicit incriminating response)
- State v. Thomas, 310 N.C. 369 (distinguishes off-hand remarks that do not reasonably provoke incriminating statements)
- State v. Lang, 309 N.C. 512 (appellate remand when trial court fails to resolve necessary factual issues)
- State v. Antone, 240 N.C. App. 408 (requires trial court to state evidence supporting findings for LWOP factors)