State Of Louisiana VS Craig H. Wager
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 1041 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CRAIG H WAGER Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court Number 463 840 Honorable Richard A Swartz Judge EWXWM1WX3 Walter P Reed District Attorney Covington LA Attorneys for State Appellee and Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Prentice L White Attorney for Baton Rouge LA Defendant Appellant Craig H Wager BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J WELCH J The defendant Craig H Wager was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of aggravated rape a violation of La R 14 and pled not guilty S 42 He moved to suppress his confession but following a hearing the motion was denied Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged He was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence He now appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress because the defendant incriminating s statement was the product of police manipulation and violation of his right to counsel For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS The victim testified at trial She was seven years old She identified the defendant in court and indicated on December 29 2008 she and her brother went to stay at his house According to the victim after her brother went to sleep the defendant took off her pants and licked her on her not nice She also indicated the defendant hurt her not nice by touching it with his finger On January 9 2009 the defendant then thirtyeight years old gave an audiotaped statement concerning the offense He denied ever touching the victim sexually although he acknowledged that he did touch the victim vagina s The defendant explained that when the victim and her brother were at his trailer the victim complained about a bobo burning her on her butt He stated that the victim pulled her pants down leaned over his bed and that he spread her buttocks to look for the sore The defendant claimed that when he found the sore he put an antibiotic ointment on it According to the defendant his righthand ring finger did not bend and he inadvertently touched the victim vagina with the finger s At trial the State asked the victim And where on your body is your not nice Can you The next entry in the record is Witness complies During her videotaped statement the victim pointed to the vagina on a diagram of a girl as her nice nice point 2 while pulling up her pants The defendant insisted that if any of his saliva or spit was found on the victim vagina it was because he accidentally spit on her vagina s while talking to her MOTION TO SUPPRESS In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress because his incriminating statement was the product of police manipulation and violation of his right to counsel It is well settled that for a confession or inculpatory statement to be admissible into evidence the State must affirmatively show that it was freely and voluntarily given without influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements or promises La R 15 Further the State must show that an S 451 accused who makes a statement or confession during custodial interrogation was first advised of his Miranda rights State v Plain 991112 p 5 La App 1 Cir 2 752 So 337 342 Additionally when a defendant alleges specific 00 18 2d instances of police misconduct in reference to the statement it is incumbent upon the State to specifically rebut the allegations State v Vessell 450 So 938 2d 94243 La 1984 The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial court its conclusions on the credibility and weight of the testimony relating to the voluntary nature of the confession are accorded great weight and will not be overturned unless they are not supported by the evidence Whether a showing of voluntariness has been made is analyzed on a casebycase basis with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case The trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether or not a confession is admissible Plain 991112 at p 6 752 So at 342 2d 2 Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L 694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed K When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e See State v Green 940887 p 11 La 5 655 So 272 28081 However a 95 22 2d trial court legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review See State v s Hunt 20091589 p 6 La 12 25 So 746 751 09 1 3d In the instant case prior to voir dire the defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession arguing inter alia it was not given freely and voluntarily Following a hearing the trial court denied the motion finding the taped statement obtained from the defendant and the testimony at the hearing indicated the defendant statement was given freely and voluntarily after advice s of rights and was not compelled by duress or inducements At the beginning of his audiotaped statement the defendant indicated he understood he was under arrest he had been advised of his rights and he waived s his rights At the end of the audiotaped statement St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office Deputy Scott Davis asked the defendant Did anybody with the Sheriff s Department promise you anything threaten you in any way in order for you to give this statement The defendant replied Other than I wouldn go to prison t for the rest of my life no Deputy Davis stated All right but you understand you under arrest right now The defendant replied Yeah Deputy Davis then stated You understand that you charged with a crime and the crime may be that you possibly can go to jail for life within the sentence He added We have not promised you anything The defendant insisted he had not touched the victim sexually Deputy Davis asked the defendant Have you been beaten on and the defendant replied No not by ya Deputy Davis asked the defendant if he had ll been given water to drink when he asked for it and he answered affirmatively Deputy Davis asked the defendant if he had been allowed to dip when he wanted C to and he answered affirmatively Deputy Davis asked the defendant if he had been treated fairly by the police and he answered affirmatively Deputy Davis then asked the defendant So we did not threaten you coerce you or anything for you telling your side and the defendant replied No Sir Deputy Davis testified at the motion to suppress hearing He indicated he advised the defendant of his Miranda rights when he arrested him He denied the defendant asked for an attorney He denied striking the defendant denied physically abusing him denied threatening him denied making any promises to him and denied offering him any inducements Deputy Davis transported the defendant to the criminal investigations bureau where he was advised of his rights using the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Department Miranda rights form Deputy Davis read the form to the defendant and the defendant signed the form indicating he understood the rights and signed again indicating I have read the above statement of my rights and I understand each of those rights and having these rights in mind I waive them and willingly make a statement Deputy Davis specifically denied that any promise was made to the defendant that if he gave a statement he would not get life imprisonment Deputy Davis also denied talking to the defendant about DNA St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office Investigative Captain Barney Turney s also testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress He spoke to the defendant at the defendant request after the defendant had been advised of his Miranda s rights According to Captain Turney the defendant did not ask to speak to an attorney Captain Turney denied coercing the defendant denied promising him anything and denied offering him any inducements He specifically denied making the defendant any promises for a particular sentence He also specifically denied threatening to hit the defendant in the head The defendant also testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress 5 He claimed Deputy Davis and another deputy arrested him and immediately started questioning him The defendant claimed the deputies told him he was a liar and asked him how the DNA got on the victim vagina He claimed I was told that s if I brought a lawyer in that I would be brought to jail They wouldn be able to t help me That the conversations would be over And that I would face life in prison The defendant also claimed Captain Turney threatened to hit him in the head if he kept shaking his head no There was no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court denial of the s s motion to suppress The court ruling on the motion to suppress indicates the court accepted the testimony of Deputy Davis and Captain Turney and rejected the testimony of the defendant The court conclusions on the credibility and weight s of the testimony relating to the voluntary nature of the defendant statement were s supported by the evidence presented by the State This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED rel
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.
