State v. LoydState v. Loyd
Ira Loyd appeals his conviction of manslaughter by unanimous jury verdict after being indicted for 2d degree murder. Defendant‘s first six assignments relate to
FACTS
Defendant admitted stabbing his estranged wife before witnesses, transporting her body several miles to аn isolated lakefront area, and later turning himself in and confessing to the police. Defendant contended that his wife produсed a knife during an argument with him and that his fatal stabbing of her was accidental. He said he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs аnd had disposed of her body because he panicked after the stabbing occurred.
ASSIGNMENTS 1 and 3
Defendant contends that his statement tо the police was not freely and voluntarily given and that he did not knowingly and intelligently understand his Miranda rights because he had injected himself with narcotics, smoked marijuana, and consumed a large quantity of alcoholic beverages during the four to five hours before the homicide. He further contends that his recorded statement to the police six hours after the stabbing should not have been heard by thе jury because it contained many profanities and vulgarities which caused the jury to be prejudiced towards him. Defendant confessed after the body was found by police.
Police witnesses who testified on the hearing of defendant‘s motion to suppress his statement indicated that defendant was coherent, knowledgeable about what was occurring and was able to “talk straight,” even though he smelled of alcohol and was somewhat unsteady on his feet at times. Whether intoxication exists to a degree sufficient tо vitiate a confession is a question of fact. The trial court‘s determination in this area will not be disturbed where it is supported by the evidence. See State v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 264 (La.1983); State v. Meredith, 400 So.2d 580 (La.1981); State v. Smith, 409 So.2d 271 (La.1982).
The profane language used by defendant in his confession consisted of four-letter words which are not uncоmmon or overly shocking in today‘s society. Defendant, in fact, used one of these words when testifying before the jury. A recorded cоnfession is considered the best evidence of what a defendant has said. See State v. Alexander, 328 So.2d 144 (La. 1976). A confession must be used in its entirety. The state cаnnot edit a confession to make it more inculpatory. See
We find assignments 1 and 3 without merit.
ASSIGNMENT 2
When an eyewitness to the stabbing was testifying on redirect examination, she was asked about the defendant‘s arrivаl at the scene with two of his friends.
“Did you know at that time that Ira Loyd was with the men?
“No.
“When did you learn Ira Loyd was with them?
“... all three of them [meaning defendant and his two friends] walked up the parking lot and [the victim] said that was [Ira Loyd] and that he had come to kill her—”
Defendant objected, asked that the jury be removed, and then moved for a mistrial.
The motion for mistrial was argued and overruled. The trial court admonished the jury when it returned that it should not consider the recited answer and should “disregard it” in its deliberations.
The trial court did not err in refusing a mistrial under these circumstances. The witness was a lay witness and not an officer оf the court. Her answer was unresponsive
ASSIGNMENT 5
Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to give two requestеd charges to the jury.
The first requested charge was that “the failure ... of the prosecution to prove [motive of] ... the accused to commit the crime is a circumstance favorable to the accusеd.” The second was that “... lack of motive may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specifiс intent.”
The jury was charged on the law of 2d degree murder, of manslaughter, specific and general criminal intent, the presumption оf innocence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and the weighing and absence of testimony in the performance оf the jury‘s function as the sole judge of the facts. The jury was told to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising оut of the evidence or want of evidence. Additionally, the jury was told that manslaughter was a homicide that was committed either in “sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation...” or “without any intent to cause death or great bоdily harm.”
Even should we assume arguendo that the requested charges were correct statements of the law, we find no error. The charge given by the court effectively told the jury what defendant requested. The jury did not find defendant guilty of 2d degree murder and apparently considered that defendant acted in sudden passion or heat of blood when he stabbed his wife or that defendant stabbed his wife without intending death or great bodily harm.
ASSIGNMENT 7
In a convoluted argument, defendant contends that the “additional” nine years given him because of his prior felony convictiоn constitutes “double jeopardy” and extends an already “unjustified” maximum manslaughter sentence of 21 years to an “excessive” 30 years. We do not agree.
Under
CONCLUSION
Finding no merit in the assignments argued, defendant‘s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.