STATE OF LOUISIANA VS HEIDI GILES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 I W 0828R STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HEIDI GILES DATE OF JUDGMENT f rJ r DEe 2 8 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 03 04 0942 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA THE HONORABLE TODD W HERNANDEZ JUDGE Doug COlU1sel for Moreau District Respondent State of Louisiana Atto111ey and Dylan Alge Assistant District Baton LJ Rouge Attorney Louisiana Counsel for DefendantRelator Hymel Michael Reese Davis Tim P Baton Heidi Giles Hartdegen Rouge Louisiana Gerald J Block Lafayette Louisiana BEFORE Disposition WRIT DENIED KUHN GIDDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ KUHN J In this counseled criminal writ of the denial of her motion with four counts Statutes 14 80 of carnal application relator Heidi Giles seeks review Relator to suppress a motion denied relator this Court relator on motion s On Court Supreme granted relator s s writ On April an of the motion to suppress application The Supreme application 2006 the trial to suppress writ Relator Court and ordered the briefing argument and full opinion 934 So 2d 703 21 May 8 2006 relator filed seeking review of the denial this Court denied relator Louisiana motion s videotaped to suppress her May 10 2005 August 9 2005 and Februmy court charged by bill of infol1uation knowledge of a juvenile violations of Louisiana Revised Relator filed contradictory hearings was See State Relator filed the instant court 7 application conducted 2006 the trial application with sought review with the remanded s to pending trial this Court for Giles 2006 1733 v On On June 5 2006 stayed relator case statement La 7 24 06 with this Court urging four claims FACTS According statements information to and the encounter with walked in Relator the BREC case at facility on Baton and transported to the witnesses in the interviewing relator case videotaped to suppress at Don least determined that relator After relator room was s a sexual supervisor raped by the four males was examined and Young and Schultz investigated some of the suspects and other not raped but had consensual was The record before this COUli did not set forth Detective Schultz 2 on Rouge Parish Recreation and hospital where she Rouge City Police Detectives after the motion the Flannery Road relator had on during the incident relator claimed she was application s East Baton an four young males in the equipment subsequently treated relator transcripts of the hearings January 22 2004 while employed Park Commission from s first name sexual intercourse with the males the time of the incident at Because the males and relator subsequently was charged with four The interview of relator videotaped under sixteen years old twenty five years old was of carnal counts were relator knowledge of a juvenile incident by the detectives regarding this During the videotaped interview relator admitted that she was was not the videotaped interview In raped and that the sexual encounter with the males was consensual Relator denying subsequently filed the motion 22 sound mind to The trial to suppress the trial the station for According 2004 motion to suppress accompanied the police January a court found that relator court questioning concerning the to the court relator determined that the court to believe that relator voluntarily given Further the trial Miranda rights statement to the legality of the employed was given freely In her in statement noted that after relator Further the by the detectives and s free will The trial without relator interview tactics which voluntariness of relator was own videotaped statement the tactics used s inducements she indicated that she understood those the police of her statement court court statement consent to be such that The court was was court and of did not promises or not freely or advised of her and gave rights a stated that the fact that did not stated that while the suspect were to s statement videotaped of events appeared competent reveal any evidence of coercion intimidation threats that would have led the voluntarily relator the invalidate the police court may have did not find they alone would invalidate the felt that the videotaped statement voluntarily court erred why the trial court application with this Comi relator contends that the trial denying her motion to suppress She urges four claims erred in denying the motion 3 as to CLAIM NUMBER ONE In her first claim inducements immunity assured her that if she day simply would get hurt and the case the detectives and tests as they lied to inculpatory fine sex was deceptive strategies such line in the sand use of these a confession or a promises La confession State v in eliciting 1984 451 15 specifically rebut a confession interrogation voluntary La a 2d So App 1st Cir defendant State v was the to obtain her made her on statement to be admissible the freely and voluntarily was menaces threats inducements an accused who makes first advised of their Miranda 18 2 00 752 So 2d 337 specific allegations s Thomas 461 So 2d 1253 of rights 342 The police misconduct 1256 La App 1st Cir 1375 La 1985 in the first instance admissibility of a confession is its conclusions complains that deceptive strategies It must also be established that custodial writ denied 464 The court R S Plain 99 1112 p 5 state must by the cop bad cop theme in order affirmatively show that it state must during used also passed polygraph Relator good as inculpatory given without influence of fear duress intimidation or thought involuntary It is well settled that for into evidence the would conclude that matter cool or and the statements consensual then through deceptive strategies Relator argues that the confession was her and told her that all witnesses had the detectives used other theme encounter repeatedly Relator indicates that she privately obtained was and told her that consensual cleansing involuntary and including herself would be arrested Relator no one argues that her confession detectives stated that the sexual everything would be alright the that obtain to promises of She contends that the detectives would be handled meant in order deception from her statements inculpatory no one relator contends that the detectives used a question for the trial credibility and weight of the testimony relating nature of the confession are accorded great 4 weight and will to the not be overtmued unless 572 see 2d So the App 1st Cir La 1993 by on a case State v Whether case Benoit 440 So 2d 129 131 App 1st Cir 1990 La showing basis with regard Hernandez 432 So 2d 350 v interviewing police officer alone statements La a to The trial Cir 3 24 05 Additionally off if he confession statements cooperated defendant a 2004 1718 writ denied are not by the police promises or to a 12 p 2005 1570 s La or accompanied by adjure an an accused v inducements tell the truth Robertson 31 cert denied 525 U S 882 Furthenuore to inducement in the promise of reward State nature of threat or one which La 3 4 98 142 L Ed 2d 155 a detective s trickelY statement into believing that the victims had identified him was insufficient make an Lockhart 629 So 2d 1195 7 4 94 a a not implies 712 2d So a 8 1998 does not by itself involuntary when considering the totality of the circumstances This Comi has concluded that to to extract by the fact law enforcement 97 0177 p 28 119 S Ct 190 designed provided the exhortation is this Court has determined that confession 0050 La defendant that he would be better A confession is not rendered inadmissible officers exhOli a prove 922 So 2d 544 127 06 render 721 to Maten v consider Testimony of the 1983 sufficient 899 So 2d 711 comi must confession is admissible a App 1st Cir be may writ denied the facts and circumstances of each La 1983 La La 1991 ofvoluntariness has been made is freely and voluntarily given State were App 1st 352 Patterson v writ denied 577 So 2d 11 1990 totality of the circumstances in deciding whether State See State supported by the evidence Sanford 569 So 2d 147 150 v 623 So 2d 1299 analyzed not are 1144 1150 La also State case they otherwise as which misled a the perpetrator while relevant voluntary confession inadmissible 1204 1205 La 635 So 2d 1132 5 defendant App 1st Cir 1993 State v writ denied 94 Detective the to According Young talked videotaped during statement relator about the incident and asked her what to Young told relator that the detectives had talked they had stated that there was not a indicated that if relator wanted such with him cool a manner as relator that The the detectives would consensual I said knew them and idea needed not talk and that what she told further was polygraph tests were Young indicated encounter at up that happened that one of the job problems that played basketball someone rape not going to who to and that she of truth to relator about alleged perpetrators mother made some had problems for passed her and tell her husband thought she got caught having this sexual relator that he was moment Young then talked of the some s the was figure out rape occurred and relator shook her head clear it up know any of the males who Young asked relator why and relator stated that she had with her story to was not He asked relator if she found this odd regularly work and then lied about it but told relator that his to not that the alleged perpetrators that he knew relator that the detectives It Relator told the detectives Young stated room them there adding comment in to not She indicated that she did clean come everything Young made this day and he found it odd that they would then saw multiple partners it judge relator Young told was Young then told relator that it to that Young give her the opportunity to she indicated that she did no the interview to the detectives had with her story the gym every engaged in consensual have sexual intercourse with that he not go any no alleged perpetrators and point during one videotape reveals pushed her into the equipment at At happened hying to appear they wanted to the to rape but that relator had sexual intercourse with the males was the interview of relator She then gave him and indicated that the incident only made the situation what no happened Young He then asked her if the Young told her that they were going some was worse information about what consensual actually Throughout his testimony first at the Young denied misleading relator Young hearing on telling her that she would testified that he to trying to trying not get relator but the incident Young admitted that he trying not was was to not not further but also so that no nothing was going relator that threaten relator On redirect to him He or only so a lying to was statement on at any the promise not on was to or some s doubts false statement a change her story Young stated her family would would be hurt not to be hurt any Young denied telling Young further testified that he did her to her her any promises anything or to relator the motion to get her to talk threatening her in any manner tell relator that she had to suppress on to confess At the February 21 2006 Young She stated that she August 9 2005 hearing However she admitted that her was being said given freely and willingly responded On redirect relator s may have made type of dlUgS during the videotaped interview in shock threatened relator prosecutor men happen prevent her from understanding what her was relator Relator testified intoxicated or that relator promising continuation of the hearing that she Young Young stated that he wanted relator Young denied making Young stated that he did denied to relator that he had to make her to other young make denied again trying mislead relator tell them the truth not be arrested see clear up any doubts he and the other detective had about relator again he claimed he that he not change her story but instead to complaint Young stated that he communicated regarding to suppress told relator that he did not want to her get into trouble but denied was the motion s state was not Relator stated of mind did not Relator also admitted that When asked if she was coerced or No but attorney asked relator questions he said other than what 7 s And towards the end of the on the videotape you didn t receive any promises or threats what have you or Relator correct responded Conect The videotape does not exchange for her statements confess Relator was not changed her story not want to see be not Detective anyone There is immunity made promise a prosecuted if it Young to not forced be arrested if she to conveyed determined that she were to was not vague and noncommittal remark that he did s get hurt did nothing that she would was reveal that either detective not to relator in promises of immunity made is there any indication that she nor The tape does relator that she would telling the truth reveal any rise not to support relator the level of a promise offer of or claim that her confession s was the product of a promise of immunity the Additionally relator did The detectives nothing s of polygraph tests According was to the to appeared twenty minutes as the only of the The interrogation videotape did testifying statement was at was case not the hearing confess nothing to Any deception was the number surrounding the police interview long not as reveal any fear not There is questions their interview with relator to be cordial and the detectives did The relator and the to deceive not appear to misrepresentation the atmosphere videotape Moreover while admitted that her minimal administered by the police prior questioning relator relator current status to claim that the detectives forced her by the detectives of relator calmly posed their questions further than present the support relator used techniques used by the detectives did on use aggressive it lasted or duress the motion freely and voluntarily given tones in approximately on the part of to suppress relator Considering the above this claim lacks merit CLAIM NUMBER TWO In her second claim interrogation which was relator contends that she was subjected to a custodial surreptitiously videotaped without first being advised of 8 her Miranda went rights Relator with the detectives address the detectives however failure to Relator argues that her custodial her Miranda picked she court advise her of her to hold through the or police car and thus she had to did not questioning her court be advised of to restrain relator from the time she of the course rely voluntarily and actions of the statements contends that the detectives refused to allow her any than the to rights prior interrogation triggered her right they intended up at her home concluded she complains that the trial Relator contends that the rights detectives revealed that was forth that the trial sets on Relator interrogation means of transportation the detectives for other ride home a Relator also claims that the detectives denied her contact with her husband mother and that the detectives cornered her in the argues that to a reasonable person would questioning or suspect from the time she The during King 563 1990 is state must custodial was show that interrogation So 2d 449 The believe that she that she could have terminated the relator argues that the focus of the a not interrogation obligation 453 to deprived free leave to had turned to her and that she accused who makes an a statement first advised of their Miranda App 1st Cir writ denied or rights In La 4 12 02 State 567 So 2d 610 provide Miranda warnings attaches only when of their freedom of action in any 2001 3196 p 7 was confession significant into a v La person or Miranda way custody v Arizona 384 U S 436 444 86 S Ct 1602 1612 16 L Ed 2d 694 1966 Payne prior Moreover questioning questioned by law enforcement after they have been taken otherwise Thus she room contacted at her home was La investigation was or State v 833 So 2d 927 934 determining whether an individual is in custody for purposes of Miranda courts must the ultimate consider all of the circumstances inquiry is simply whether there freedom of movement of the surrounding the interrogation and was a degree associated with 9 a formal arrest formal arrest or restraint Stansbury on v California curiam 511 U S 318 not officers or the person That an the on depends being questioned individual is Stansbury for purposes of Miranda context officer that the person under and dispositive of the custody issue for some suspects police decide to Accordingly make an an arrest officer s views are free 511 U S Stansbury concerning the at nature occurs in clear statement from prime suspect is a at criminal a interrogation e ven a interrogation is of the 114 S Ct 511 U S at 323 determine whether the per interrogating the suspect of the police conducting a not 1994 objective circumstances the on subjective views harbored by either investigation therefore does custodial 1529 128 L Ed 2d 293 114 S Ct 1526 This determination intelTogation 1529 322 to come an in itself not and go until the 114 S Ct at 1530 325 of a an interrogation or beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned be among many factors that bear upon the assessment whether that individual one was to in custody but only if the officer the individual under person in that 511 U S 4 8 04 at 325 in the sit corner She did them in what at 871 So 2d 1087 1088 a happened or See State be somehow manifested to a leave reasonable Stansbury Saltzman 2003 1423 p 2 v brought relator next to a to or to a table in the not appear there frightened Young talked or was small room room anywhere else was not engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with them talking with her in general 10 at Relator for her scared of the detectives and talked Subsequently Young told relator that they had talked were La to relator about the incident and asked her suspects who told the detectives that there the detectives were per curiam of the room but it did tone beliefs her freedom the videotape the detectives not appear to normal 1530 All three persons sat at police station was to 114 S Ct to or interrogation and would have affected how position would perceive his According the views s may a It rape to the but that relator had appeared that at this point about the incident her version of and the claims made events Young let relator know that they were starting see if she wanted to that he Young then indicated her head him happened a break Subsequently the sexual to to clear it up sexual was to She then gave actually happened and indicated that the incident of names the detectives stated that point of the males some they were going the detectives reentered the interview advised relator of her Miranda confessed to talk to this Young told relator that his job Relator gave the detectives the involved in the incident At this take story and wanted He then asked her if the rape occurred and relator shook information about what consensual was her give her the opportunity to Young told her that they were going no some question thought relator got caught having work and then lied about it out what figure to change her StOlY Young told relator that they wanted encounter at During this questioning by the alleged perpetrators room to and rights and questioned her further Relator fully encounter being consensual and gave the detectives details regarding the incident At the first he some 3 2004 of the on the motion the instant began investigating February to hearing went alleged perpetrators of relator by relator s initial s Relator detective did s her about the apartment and transpOlied her to the not him to go have any Upon arriving As soon as at to go to at to with them but to case station going with Young Young to and the other Young relator did was taken to not have the interview the station the detectives decided 11 police to a stay home the police station relator they arrived to objections According problem with that and told her husband On According to husband wanted not want complaint talk Young indicated that relator did the station complaint relator about her claims after he had talked Young he called relator and told her that he wanted He then Young testified that after relator filed the initial case Young interviewed Detective to suppress to room videotape their conversation with relator They told relator that they wanted with her because some concerns advised of her talking were talking to they had to Young indicated that relator rights before initially being interviewed because to strictly to interview her Young testified that at that According her to point they stopped at that Young complaint regarding her relator revealed that her discuss the as the rape case was not point they they began false was the interview and advised her of her rights On examination cross regarding relator one Young stated that he began complaint after interviewing s alleged perpetrator passed talk a polygraph why they wanted to telling the truth Young denied thinking that to relator again was According in order at Young indicated he had to questions to Young the sex reason verify if the suspects s were interview he with the males involved and needed concerns some the time of relator already believed that she had had consensual However have alleged perpetrators and after two test to to clear up some things with her According 2004 the not under police to were went usually did not relator that they pursuing the not rights she was interview people were going to under aggravated that time at their home videotape on was a February 3 on rape Relator According to talk to to her was Young Young explained that he Young also stated that he informed their conversation February Young admitted that 3 2004 he did not advise her of at that time rights after she suspect However he stated that investigation Young testified to at an questioning he just wanted relator infOlTIl her that she or not indicated case as interview relator in her home but he initially interviewing her the time of the interview of relator with him for testified that he did to still at investigation for carnal knowledge when relator prior Young that it was decided the detectives that her to advise relator of her complaint might be false 12 He felt that the interview then turned into an When asked if relator refused interrogation any further would he have handcuffed her and locked her up p robably The arrest did general inquiry made not constitute As suspect a to custodial objections about going told relator that he wanted just wanted time relator was At the not hearing that she had been a to talk suspect on to or not her about the under the motion complain consent to regarding this claim a problem Young also testified that he to some this at rights According relator did Young point at that not that she felt testify under arrest at the time of the initial or about her husband leave not Relator tape the interview and that at her with her because he had case not investigation for carnal knowledge to suppress that she felt that she could whatsoever case to not have any have not advise relator of her not placed in custody She did questioning state discuss the the motion arriving Young testified that relator did Young admitted that he did because he or to her to relator was relator before the station with them to on questioning the police station and that relator did to going not interrogation At the hearing Young called apartment and then picked her up concerns Young responded during the interview and prior relator the point of the initial at previously noted with her husband talk that point Young testified that suppress a not at to or being mother not In fact she gave only testified that she did no one told her that they no testimony not were with her give her going to record the interview Relator further admitted that she Young took her that her statement statement threatened to was give her was advised of her Miranda and that she understood those free and statement her freedom of action in any willing She indicated that she Relator did significant rights way 13 not rights before She also admitted was indicate that she not was forced or deprived of The specifically rebutted relator state when the detectives began talking was not in custody when she her allegations He knowledge detectives did or not was not relator never relator was As such her being questioned she explained was the Prior tell relator that she free to leave asked in not locked her up to cease at the custody state to part of the investigation of as them he would to relator of her advising suspect that she not was not have rights the under arrest or restrain her movement and made an time she gave the initial carried its burden of for carnal talk never custody Young testified that relator investigation The detectives did and in under not to was a questioning regarding being Detective that time and if she had refused at handcuffed her that she was to claims s attempt to leave Thus statement to showing that relator s the police statement was voluntary and knowing and not given in violation of Miranda Additionally although relator suggests that the confession should be suppressed because it no case law to was videotaped without support her claim relator that her statement was her to be or Young testified Furthermore going knowledge consent there is that he informed Accordingly this claim videotaped lacks merit CLAIM NUMBER THREE In her third claim inculpatory statements relator contends that after the detectives improperly warnings by giving warnings that pertained instead of carnal to advised relator of her Miranda filing a false police complaint knowledge of a juvenile which was the charged offense Relator argues that when the detectives did advise relator of her the detectives obtaining involuntary and specifically limited the Miranda rights rights they were invalid to the crime of filing a as false complaint which was a misdemeanor According the incident to was the videotape and the hearing testimony after relator admitted that consensual and the detectives realized the 14 complaint was false the detectives took a subsequently reentered the interview break and then advised relator of her Miranda Young did inform relator rights advising her of her rights because her complaint questioned relator regarding the incident what happened and who Young indicated that February 3 2004 the police Relator was not In under proving an at still pursuing the intelligent waiver of the of the full evidentiary significance of his So 2d 851 852 La 1982 Moreover 479 U S 564 577 536 2d So Considering A specific questioned is 107 S Ct 851 incrimination silence show that statements aggravated questioned is 859 93 L Ed 2d 954 on rape a protection against defendant See State not v a Mitchell 421 La 631 was aware App suspect s relevant 1987 stCir awareness waive the to State 1 Spring v v Warren App 1st Cir 1988 the above it is noted that Miranda suspect s not involved was privilege against self incrimination See Colorado 529 533 La were that time Supreme Court noted of all the crimes about which he could be Fifth Amendment not to at Williams 521 So 2d 629 v the United States as rights an case as investigation for carnal knowledge self incrimination and counsel the state need 1988 they the time of the initial interview of relator were State that and They then thoroughly false was room awareness relevant to warnings are not offense of all the crimes about which he could be determining the waiver of the privilege against self This claim is without merit CLAIM NUMBER FOUR In her fourth claim detectives after of the relator contends that the tree and not subsequent Miranda warning directly from According to obtained by the improperly advising relator of her rights should be considered fruit poisonous derived statements relator admitted into evidence was detelTIlined to Relator contends that if the be valid the the pre Miranda statements and thus statements should be were suppressed during the post Miranda interrogation the detectives and 15 relator used such statements relator contends that these at the beginning of the As rights to like I said as statements considered only obtained due were to be f1uit of the not violate Miranda not Thus police misconduct tree poisonous advise relator of her Thus there is no merit being advised of her rights claim that her later confession after to discussed earlier noted the fact that the detectives did previously s as we interrogation before her initial interview did relator and and should not was be allowed into evidence Moreover it is noted that prior rule to being advised of her it would voluntary not even if relator rights were have tainted the statements relator made to 298 309 that the instant S Ct 2601 detectives case determined See State is not 1219 84 L Ed 2d 222 293 controlled 159 L Ed 2d 643 to statements to process and the 2004 as subsequent being given Miranda Ford 97 2019 pp 9 10 v citing Oregon v there is v La Elstad 470 U S Furthermore it is noted 1985 by Missouri the detectives be violative of the Miranda the detectives after 713 So 2d 1214 105 S Ct 1285 initial investigatory warnings and waiving those warnings App 1st Cir 6 29 98 s Seibert 542 U S no 600 124 indication here that the deliberately withheld the Miranda warnings prior to interviewing relator Thus this claim is without merit Considering the above relator s motion to suppress we find that the trial Accordingly WRIT DENIED 16 relator s court writ did not err application is in denying denied
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
