State Of Louisiana VS Lakeisha Shanae Adams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 KA 2015 nI STATE OF LOUISIANA m o T VERSUS 0 LAKEISHA SHANAE ADAMS Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the TwentySecond Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Washington State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 06 CRI 94104 Honorable William J Burris Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee Franklinton LA State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Margaret Smith Sollars Counsel for Defendant Appellant Thibodaux LA Lakeisha Shanae Adams BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ f WHIPPLE J The defendant Lakeisha Shanae Adams was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of LSA R 14 She S 30 1 initially pled not guilty Prior to trial the defendant withdrew her not guilty plea and entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity Following the appointment of a sanity commission and a sanity hearing in January 2007 the trial court determined that the defendant was not competent to stand trial defendant was remanded to the Feliciana Forensic The Facility for treatment Subsequently in June 2008 a second competency hearing was held At the conclusion of this hearing the defendant was found competent to proceed to trial In March 2009 the defendant was tried by a jury and convicted as charged The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals urging two assignments of error as follows 1 A statement must be voluntarily and intelligently given to be admissible evidence at trial Lakeisha Adams statements were not s free and voluntary because of her delusional state and the use of improper questioning techniques by the police Therefore the t rial ourt c erred in denying the motion to suppress her statements 2 The conviction in this case cannot stand for it fails to meet the legal standard for sufficiency of the evidence Lakeisha Adams met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she was insane at the time of J death s A Finding no merit in the assigned errors we affirm the defendant sconviction and sentence FACTS This case involves the brutal killing of three monthold J at the hands A of his mother the eighteen yearold defendant As shown at trial on December 5 2005 the defendant placed J inside the clothes dryer at her home and turned it A In accordance with LSA R 46 the infant victim is referenced only by his S 1844 W initials 2 on The child died as a result of blunt force head trauma and thermal injuries as the infant also sustained second and third degree burns over fifty percent of his body The testimony and evidence at the defendant trial established the s following On December 5 2005 at approximately 6 p the defendant called 911 50 m and advised that someone broke into her home and killed her infant son Officers from the Bogalusa Police Department were dispatched to the defendant s Roosevelt Street residence to investigate When the officers arrived they found the defendant standing in the street hysterical The defendant told the officers she momentarily exited the residence to take out some trash and two unidentified males entered the residence and locked the door She claimed she did not regain entry into the residence until approximately twenty minutes later At that time she claimed she learned that the men had placed J inside the clothes dryer The A officers found the body of three monthold J propped up on a sofa inside the A residence The child sbody was covered with thermal injuries The injuries were red in color and had heat radiating from them A large bloodstained comforter was found inside the dryer and the dryer lint filter contained pieces ofhuman skin s Upon conversing with the defendant again the investigating officers noted what they believed to be inconsistencies in her story The officers also noted that although she acted hysterically the defendant was not actually crying any tears The officers began to doubt the defendant sstory and her sincerity The defendant was later read her Miranda rights and taken to the police headquarters for questioning At the station the defendant again claimed that the unidentified men locked her out of the house and killed her baby before fleeing The investigating officers advised the defendant that her story did not add up and asked that she tell the truth The defendant stated my family is going to hate me Thereafter the 3 defendant provided a videotaped statement to the authorities The videotape admitted into evidence and played for the jury at the trial recorded the defendant calmly admitting that she placed J inside the clothes dryer to calm him and quiet A his crying The defendant claimed she had done this to the infant at least once before The defendant was arrested and indicted with murder At the trial Eugene Montrel Jones testified that he was J father He s A explained that he and the defendant had been involved in a relationship Jones admitted that he also was involved in a relationship with Zenaida Franklin at the same time Jones claimed he loved both women Around the same time in 2005 both the defendant and Franklin became impregnated by Jones Jones went back and forth spending time with both women Both women lived in Bogalusa at the time These shared relationships ultimately caused friction between the defendant and Zenaida The women were very hostile towards one another and were involved in many physical fights Eventually Zenaida left Bogalusa and moved to Baton Rouge According to Jones the defendant gave birth to J first J was born A A approximately two months premature After J birth Jones and the defendant s A were together in Bogalusa Later on December 1 2005 Zenaida gave birth to her baby in Baton Rouge On December 5 2005 Jones left Bogalusa and traveled to Baton Rouge to be with Zenaida and his other child Jones testified the defendant was not pleased with his decision She repeatedly called Jones on his cellular phone and asked why he was in Baton Rouge According to Jones the defendant was jealous because she knew he was in Baton Rouge with Zenaida She wanted him to return to Bogalusa Jones testified he told the defendant that Zenaida had given birth to a baby for him also and it was time for him to be with her Jones claimed that because the defendant kept calling and aggravating him he 13 eventually turned his phone off Later when he turned the phone back on the defendant called and stated that someone put J in the dryer A Franklin testified she overheard the phone calls the defendant made to Jones on the day in question According to Franklin the defendant called once and told Jones something was wrong with J Approximately 35 to 40 minutes later the A defendant called and said the baby was dead Franklin also confirmed the violent relationship that existed between herself and the defendant She admitted to stabbing the defendant once and stated the defendant ran over her with a vehicle MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE In her first assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress her confession She argues the state failed to carry its burden of proving that the confession was free and voluntary and of proving a knowing and intelligent waiver of her rights under Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S Ct S 1602 16 L Ed 2d 694 1966 Specifically the defendant asserts that her delusional mental state and the improper questioning techniques employed by the investigating officers vitiated any voluntariness on her part In response the state asserts the defendant failed to raise this issue in connection with her motion to suppress filed below and thus she is precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal Alternatively the state contends the record is clear that the s defendant confession was free and voluntary and that she knowingly and intelligently waived her rights Initially we note that the state is correct in its assertion that the defendant failed to raise the issue of her mental condition at the time of the statement in her motion to suppress The record reflects that the defendant smotion asserted that her confession was inadmissible because it was made under the influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements and promises and without or mover having been advised of her rights to remain silent right to counsel and other 5 rights and protections afforded under the Federal and State Constitutions The motion is devoid of any reference to the involuntariness of the confession based upon the defendant mental condition s At the hearing on the motion to suppress the defendant smental condition at the time of the statement was not at issue The main issue raised was whether the statement was freely and voluntarily given in compliance with LSAR 15 S 451 and Miranda Lieutenant Donald Ray Phelps of the Bogalusa Police Department testified that the defendant initially advised that some men broke into her house and killed her baby Lt Phelps explained that the defendant sincerity was s questionable because although she appeared to be crying no tears were observed The defendant was eventually transported to police headquarters for questioning Prior to giving a statement the defendant was advised of her Miranda rights using an Interrogation Advice of Rights form According to Lt Phelps the defendant voluntarily waived her rights and executed the rightswaiver document Lt Phelps testified that no promises inducements or force was used in connection with the sconfession He explained that the defendant was advised that her story defendant regarding someone else coming into the home and injuring her baby was not adding up She was urged to tell the truth Thereafter the defendant freely and voluntarily confessed to placing J inside the dryer and turning it on A She explained that she was watching a movie with her daughter C A and J was A crying The defendant claimed she left the baby in the dryer for an undisclosed amount of time before taking his body out and sitting him up on the sofa She also claimed that she had taken several different types of medication that day Captain Joe Culpepper also of the Bogalusa Police Department testified that he was present when the defendant gave the videotaped confession He stated the defendant was never threatened coerced or promised anything in exchange for her confession Once the officers advised the defendant that her initial account of 9 the events contained inconsistencies the defendant changed the story The defendant freely and voluntarily provided the statement wherein she indicated she put her baby in the dryer to calm him She also admitted that she had done this once before Captain Culpepper further explained that although he had learned that the defendant had been somewhat hysterical when the police initially arrived on the scene by the time of the statement she appeared to be very calm In the videotaped statement prior to answering any questions regarding the events leading up to J death the defendant acknowledged that she had been s A advised of her rights with an Interrogation Advice of Rights form She confirmed that the form had been read to her acknowledged her comprehension of the rights contained in the form and indicated she wished to waive said rights In denying the motion to suppress the trial court noted a this time I am t going to find that what purports to be a confession has been shown to be freely and voluntarily made and not made under the influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements or promises As the state correctly notes the defendant motion to suppress the s confession did not include any assertions regarding the effect of her mental condition and the interrogation techniques on the voluntariness of the statement or Neither of these particular grounds were articulated by the defendant or addressed by the state during the hearing The record reflects and the defendant acknowledges t idea of mental illness did not even come into play at the he hearing on the motion to suppress This new basis for the motion to suppress has been raised for the first time on appeal LSAC art 703 It is well settled P Cr F that a new basis or ground for the motion to suppress cannot be articulated for the first time on appeal The articulation on appeal of a new basis or ground for suppression is prohibited under the provisions ofLSAC art 841 as the trial P Cr court would not be afforded an opportunity to consider the merits of the particular 7 claim See State v Cressy 440 So 2d 141 14243 La 1983 Thus the defendant herein is precluded from raising a new basis for her motion to suppress on appeal Moreover even if the defendant were not precluded from raising this claim the assignment of error would fall for lack of merit The defendant argument s appears to assert that the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental defect she allegedly had voluntariness of her confession e idelusions did not affect the However it is well settled that in proving the voluntariness of a confession the state may rely on the presumption of sanity provided in LSA R 15 leaving to the defendant the burden to prove the S 432 existence of a mental abnormality which under the circumstances may have destroyed the voluntary nature of her confession State v Waymire 504 So 2d 953 958 La App 1st Cir 1987 citing State v Glover 343 So 2d 118 La 1976 if the defendant fails to prove the existence of a mental defect or fails to prove that such disorder prevented the confession from being voluntary the state is not required to negate the defendant smental abnormality however the state in all other respects must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary State v Waymire 504 So 2d at 958 Because a defendant is presumed competent the defendant has the burden of proving a mental defect making her unable to understand her Miranda rights and therefore incompetent to waive them See State v Waymire 504 So 2d at 958 In this case the defendant failed to present any evidence at the suppression hearing regarding her mental condition and its effect on the voluntariness of the or confession The testimony and other evidence established that notwithstanding any depression the defendant spoke willingly with the investigating officers when she admitted that she placed her infant son inside the clothes dryer and turned it on E The defendant indicated sufficient presence of mind to concede that she initially lied about what occurred and she was telling the truth at the time she confessed This assignment of error lacks merit SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In her second assignment of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to convict her of second degree murder because the preponderance of the evidence established she was delusional and insane at the time of the commission of the offense In Louisiana a jury considering a defendant dual plea of not guilty and not s guilty by reason of insanity must first determine whether the state has proved the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt If the state meets its traditional burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant then bears the burden of establishing that he was insane at the time of the offense and therefore exempt from criminal responsibility State v Williams 2001 0944 p 4 La App 1st Cir 12 804 So 2d 932 938 writ denied 2002 0399 La 01 28 03 14 2 836 So 2d 135 The standard of review for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution a rational trier of fact could conclude that the state proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt See LSAC art P Cr 821 State v Pizzalato 93 1415 p 17 La App 1st Cir 10 644 So 2d 712 94 7 721 writ denied 94 2755 La 3 650 So 2d 1174 95 10 The Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 99 S Ct 2781 61 L Ed 2d 560 1979 standard of S review incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence LSAR 15 provides the fact finder must be S 438 satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of Z innocence State v McLean 525 So 2d 1251 1255 La App 1st Cir writ denied 532 So 2d 130 La 1988 Louisiana Revised Statute 14 defines second degree murder as A 1 30 follows A Second degree murder is the killing of a human being 1 When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm Thus to support the conviction for second degree murder the state was required to show 1 the killing of a human being and 2 that the defendant had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm State v Morris 993075 p 13 La App 1st Cir 11 770 So 2d 908 918 writ denied 20003293 La 00 3 01 12 10 799 So 2d 496 cert denied 535 U 934 122 S Ct 1311 152 L Ed S 2d 220 2002 In the instant case the defendant does not contest that the evidence was sufficient to establish second degree murder absent a finding that she was insane at the time of the offense However the defendant insists that the evidence of her history of mental illness severe depression together with the expert testimony regarding the additional diagnosis of postpartum depression and posttraumatic or stress disorder proved that she lost touch with reality during the time that she placed her infant son in the clothes dryer The defendant argues that she met her burden of proof at trial and the jury acted irrationally in convicting her of second degree murder In Louisiana a legal presumption exists that a defendant is sane and responsible for his actions at the time of an offense See LSA R 15 State v S 432 Harris 99 0820 p 6 La App 1st Cir 2754 So 2d 304 308 00 18 Thus the state is not required to offer any proof of the defendant ssanity State v Harris 99 0820 at p 6 754 So 2d at 308 To rebut the presumption of sanity and avoid Mil criminal responsibility a defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence See LSAC art 652 P Cr Moreover criminal responsibility is not negated by the mere existence of a mental disease or defect To be exempted from criminal responsibility a defendant must show he suffered a mental disease or mental defect that prevented him from distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question LSA R 14 State v Silman 95 0154 p 7 La 11 663 So 2d 27 32 S 95 27 The determination of sanity is a factual matter All the evidence including expert and lay testimony along with the defendant conduct and actions before and after s the crime should be reserved for the fact finder to establish whether the defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense See State v Silman 95 0154 at p 7 663 So 2d at 32 At the trial of this matter the state presented the testimony of Dr John W Thompson Jr an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry Dr Thompson initially evaluated the defendant as part of the sanity commission and later to determine her sanity at the time of the offense On the issue of the defendant s sanity at the time ofthe commission of the offense Dr Thompson testified that the defendant suffered from a mental disease major depression However Dr Thompson was of the opinion that the defendant sdepressive condition did not rise to the level where she could not distinguish between right and wrong The determination of the defendant appreciation of the wrongfulness of her actions s was based upon the inconsistencies in the defendant saccounts of the events i e her attempt to cover up her involvement in the matter the absence of delusional andor fixed false beliefs and the absence of a psychotic motive i e instead the defendant was frustrated because J was crying These actions Dr Thompson A noted are inconsistent with experiencing psychotic depression or depression that forces one to lose touch with reality Instead the defendant actions indicate a s 11 non psychotic motive He explained that the defendant was frustrated or overwhelmed with the situation she was in with the child father and she chose to s use a primitive method of attempting to get the baby to stop crying The state also presented the testimony of Dr Charles P Vosburg and Dr Herbert W Terry LeBourgeois both accepted as experts in forensic psychology Drs Vosburg and LeBourgeois each testified that the defendant met the first criteria for insanity defense because she had a diagnosable mental illness major depressive episode Dr LeBourgeois also concluded the defendant met the criteria for posttraumaticstress disorder in response to an earlier life threatening stabbing by Franklin Both doctors found that the defendant was under a tremendous amount of stress after the birth of her second child and was likely affected by postpartum depression and stress associated with her dealings with Franklin However the defendant did not experience delusions or fixed false beliefs Both experts noted that although she reported past hallucinations the defendant denied any hallucinations on the date of the killing Each expert was of the firm opinion that the defendant was able to distinguish between right and wrong at the time she committed the offense in question The defendant sdepressed mental condition did not result in her losing touch with reality at the time of the incident Instead the doctors opined her actions resulted from poor judgment in a stressful situation not from any psychosis In support of her insanity defense the defendant presented lay testimony from her mother grandmother aunt high school teacher high school guidance counselor and several friends to establish a history of mental illness Kerry Berry testified that the defendant was living with her when she became pregnant with A J her second child The defendant an otherwise happy individual became obviously depressed She isolated herself and refused to interact with Berry Berry explained the defendant abnormal behavior made her feel uncomfortable s 12 in her own home Berry further explained that despite her change in behavior the defendant had a good relationship with her children and was never observed abusing them She cared for her children Berry was surprised to learn that the defendant had placed her infant son in the dryer as this was inconsistent with the way the defendant had cared for her children Karen Williams another friend of the defendant testified she also observed a change in the defendant spersonality after she became pregnant with her second child The defendant became distant and isolated herself from others The sbehavior led Williams to believe she needed mental help Like Berry defendant Williams testified that the defendant had exhibited a very loving relationship with her first child Karen Sharp one of the defendant high school teachers testified that the s defendant approached her one day and advised that she would be dropping out of school The defendant explained that she needed to get a job to take care of her daughter because the defendant mother was trying to take the child s Sharp described the defendant as a very proud and attentive mother She took good care of her child The defendant was also a very quiet wellbehaved good student Although she never observed the defendant interaction with the second child s Sharp explained that the incident of placing the baby in the clothes dryer was inconsistent with the type of parent she knew the defendant to be The defendant sgrandmother Ella Mae Skiffer also testified regarding the s defendant mental condition Skiffer testified that the defendant lived at the Roosevelt Street residence with her at the time of the offense According to Skiffer the defendant spersonality changed tremendously after she gave birth to A J She claimed the defendant started seeing and imagining things that did not exist and talking to herself more Skiffer explained that the defendant had on occasion talked to herself before but this behavior occurred more frequently after 13 A J was born The defendant also became very paranoid She repeatedly accused Skiffer and the defendant mother of wanting to take her children s Skiffer described the defendant as an overprotective and caring parent Skiffer also testified regarding an incident wherein the defendant came home out of breath stating that someone in a black vehicle with tinted windows was after her She stated that the vehicle had just turned around in the driveway Skiffer stated that although she did not believe anyone was following the defendant because she had not heard any sound of a vehicle on the gravel in the driveway she told the defendant she was going to go check things out When she returned the defendant had locked her out When Skiffer finally convinced the defendant to open the door the defendant was armed with a knife Her eyes were big like somebody had scared her half to death Skiffer testified about another vehicle incident in which the defendant collided with the rear of a vehicle that was stopped at a red light The defendant again claimed that someone in a black car was following her Skiffer did not believe anyone was following the defendant Skiffer stated that the defendant was severely depressed Skiffer explained that she does not believe the defendant would have harmed J if she had been in A her right mind Skiffer denied any knowledge of suicide attempts by the defendant The defendant aunt Janice Johnson s also testified regarding the s defendant tendency to imagine things that did not occur Johnson recalled a situation in which the defendant threatened to hit her sister with a hammer because she believed her sister had taken something from her According to Johnson the s defendant sister had not taken anything from the defendant Johnson also testified that the defendant believed that the family members wanted her children Johnson also witnessed the incident in which the defendant came home scared and 14 told her grandmother that someone was following her a story Johnson claimed was untrue Margie Marie Graves the guidance counselor at the defendant shigh school testified about an incident in which the defendant came to her office upset and crying The defendant refused to reveal what was bothering her She just sat there and cried for approximately 25 to 30 minutes Graves assured the defendant that she could talk to her about anything The defendant did not open up She simply asked Graves if she would call her mother to come and get her Graves complied She later observed the defendant seated outside alone staring at the ground Omika Johnson another friend testified that she and the defendant went to high school together Omika described the defendant as a very playful and interactive individual However she explained that in January 2005 after the defendant and her oldest child moved in with Omika and her family the defendant became very distant and antisocial The defendant did not join Omika family at s mealtime and did not converse with anyone Instead she regularly chose to sit in her room in the dark Omika testified she once observed the defendant sitting on the bed in the dark rocking back and forth and mumbling to herself At that point Omika concluded that the defendant was crazy The defendant mother Jacqueline Brown also testified about the s sbizarre behavior following J birth According to Brown among defendant s A other things the defendant started isolating herself from others started talking to herself and began imagining people who did not exist Brown testified that one day the defendant left home walking and wandered aimlessly in the area for approximately two hours Concerned for her daughter safety s Brown accompanied her The defendant did not talk to Brown during the walk and she refused to reveal what if anything was bothering her To Brown this behavior was strange 15 Brown further testified that the defendant suffered from depression and she acknowledged that a history of depression existed in their family On the issue of parenting Brown like the other lay witnesses testified that the defendant was a good mother and loved her children As further evidence of the defendant state of mind on the day of the child s s death Brown testified the defendant called and told her that someone broke into the house and killed her baby the same story she told the 911 operator and initially the police However Brown stated that once she arrived at the residence the defendant with a blank stare on her face asked what is wrong with my baby The defendant also presented expert testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr Sarah Deland Dr Deland testified that she participated in evaluating the scompetence to stand trial and her sanity at the time of the defendant of the offense Her diagnostic impression was major depressive episode severe with psychotic features with postpartum onset in partial remission She also thought the defendant may have been dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from the event where Franklin attacked her with a knife The defendant was actively psychotic actively paranoid Dr Deland testified she was ofthe opinion that the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense due to her mental illness On appeal the defendant essentially argues that the jury failed to give proper weight to the lay testimony of the defendant sfamily and friends and the expert testimony of Dr Deland which led to a verdict of guilty instead of not guilty by reason of insanity Essentially she appears to request that this court reweigh the evidence and overturn her conviction Although the defendant clearly had a history of major depression and the expert testimony presented conflicting views as to her state of mind at the time of the commission of the offense the jury was free to evaluate and accept or reject in 16 whole or in part the testimony of the witnesses offered by the parties including that of the experts The jury faced with the conflicting psychiatric evidence obviously rejected Dr Deland opinion and accepted the opinions of Drs s Thompson Vosburg and LeBourgeois thus discrediting the possibility of insanity at the time of the offense We find no error in this determination Considering the totality of the evidence we find that reasonable jurors could have concluded that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense As previously noted while there was evidence of defendant s history of severe depression presented at trial there was also evidence from multiple experts that the depression was not at a psychotic level and thus the defendant was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense Even though Dr Deland opined that the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the pertinent time the evidence established that the defendant attempted to conceal her involvement in the infant murder when she s initially talked to the police and to her mother to hide what she had done Defendant fabricated the claim of an attack by unidentified males As specifically noted by Dr LeBourgeois in his testimony if the defendant had suffered from some delusion or fixed false belief that her actions were not wrong she would have disclosed her participation in the child death when initially questioned Also in s her taped statement to the police on the night in question the defendant specifically stated that she did not mean to kill him This statement further supports a finding that the defendant was aware that the harm she inflicted upon A J by placing him in the dryer was wrong The defendant statement expressing s concern that her family would hate her provides even further insight into her appreciation of the wrongful nature of her conduct As Dr LeBourgeois reasoned if the defendant had not understood that placing the baby in the dryer was wrong 17 there would have been no reason for her to believe that her family would hate her for having done it Based on these facts a rational trier of fact could have found defendant failed to rebut the presumption of sanity by a preponderance of the evidence For the above reasons when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state we find any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the state established each essential element of second degree murder This assignment of error lacks merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 18
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.
