12/19/16 Supreme Court of Louisiana No. 2012-Ka-0508
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
12/19/16 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2012-KA-0508 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JEFFREY CLARK ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA HUGHES, J. The defendant, Jeffrey Clark, and a number of fellow inmates incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana (“Angola”) conspired to escape from prison. In furtherance of that plot, on the evening of December 28, 1999, they smuggled improvised weapons into the Angola Camp D education building, where various scheduled meetings and classes were taking place; there, they launched an attack on the prison guards present, hoping to obtain keys necessary to gain access to a nearby vehicle and to exit a secure access sally port to leave the prison and escape to Canada. The escape attempt was thwarted when prison officials discovered the disturbance and quickly surrounded the education building. Captain David N. Knapps, who had been taken hostage by the inmates, was bludgeoned and stabbed to death. Each inmate involved was tried separately, and the defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Captain Knapps (in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30) and sentenced to death. On appeal to this court, pursuant to LSA-Const. Art. V, Sec. 5(D)(2),1 the defendant relies on thirty-seven assignments of error, contending his conviction and sentence should be reversed. After a thorough review of the law and evidence, we find no merit in any of the assignments of error. Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 15, 2004 a West Feliciana Parish grand jury indicted Angola inmate Jeffrey Clark and fellow inmates David Mathis, David Brown, Barry Edge, and Robert Carley2 for the December 28, 1999 first degree murder of Capt. Knapps (in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30), which occurred in the officers’ restroom of the Angola Camp D education building. In July and August of 2004, respectively, the State notified the defendant that it intended to seek the death penalty and would rely on eight aggravating circumstances:3 (1) the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the aggravated kidnapping of Lieutenant Douglas Chaney and Sergeant Reddia Walker; (2) the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an aggravated escape; (3) the victim was a peace officer engaged in his lawful duties; (4) the offender has been previously convicted of an unrelated murder; (5) the offender created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person; (6) the offender was imprisoned for the commission of an unrelated forcible felony at the time of commission of the offense; (7) the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel 1 Article V, Section 5(D) provides, in pertinent part: “[A] case shall be appealable to the supreme court if . the defendant has been convicted of a capital offense and a penalty of death actually has been imposed.” 2 These five defendants have come to be referred to as the “Angola 5.” A sixth inmate, Joel Durham, was also involved but he was shot and killed on the night of the incident, during the rescue of hostage Sergeant Reddia Walker. Mathis was also shot when he and Durham refused to surrender. A seventh inmate, Robert Cooper, was involved in the escape attempt but was not charged with the murder or any other crime, though he was the subject of a subsequent DOC disciplinary action. 3 See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 905.4(A)(1)-(4), (6), (7), and (9). 2 manner; and (8) the victim was a correctional officer who, in the normal course of his employment was required to come in close contact with persons incarcerated in a state prison facility, and the victim was engaged in his lawful duties at the time of the offense. On February 5, 2010 the State amended the indictment to charge the co- defendants as principals. It also amended the list of aggravating circumstances on which it intended to rely from eight to four. Although the trial court addressed a majority of pretrial matters in a consolidated manner,4 each co-defendant’s trial was held separately.5 The defendant was the first to go to trial in July of 2010. The trial court declared a mistrial because, during the guilt phase opening statements, the State referenced the fact that the defendant was already serving a life sentence.6 The court of appeal disagreed, but this court reversed and reinstated the trial court’s ruling. State v. Clark, 10-1676 (La. 7/17/10), 39 So.3d 594. On April 27, 2011, the day before jury selection was set to commence in the defendant’s second trial, the defendant sought to represent himself in certain aspects of his trial with the assistance of his appointed attorneys. After the trial 4 These pretrial motions were presided over, variously, by the Honorable George H. Ware, Jr., Judge, Division A; the Honorable Dennis J. Waldron, Judge Ad Hoc; and the Honorable Jerome M. Winsberg, Judge Ad Hoc. 5 Mathis pled guilty and received a life sentence. Carley and Edge were found guilty as charged and received life sentences, as neither of these defendants’ jury voted unanimously to impose the death penalty. Brown’s jury found him guilty as charged and imposed the death penalty. The trial court granted a motion for new trial as to Brown’s penalty phase, however, because it found the State withheld Brady material, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The court of appeal reversed, and this court denied writs. State v. Brown, 15-2001 (La. 2/19/16), 184 So.3d 1265 (wherein this court concluded that the withheld statements of an uninvolved inmate, inculpating Edge and Clark as the inmates who decided to kill Capt. Knapps, based on the inmate’s conversations with Edge, did not constitute Brady material as to Brown and provided no evidence regarding which inmates actually killed Capt. Knapps), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2489, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2016). The defendant’s jury did not hear this evidence. 6 The Honorable Dennis J. Waldron, Judge Ad Hoc, presided over the July 2010 trial. 3 court conducted extensive Faretta7 colloquies with the defendant and his counsel, the defendant ultimately gave the opening and closing statements and questioned numerous fact witnesses during the guilt phase of his trial.8 The record reflects that the defendant’s appointed attorneys provided assistance with these tasks. Under the defendant’s direction, as lead counsel, his appointed attorneys conducted the penalty phase qualification and general voir dire and questioned all of the expert witnesses during the guilt phase. The defendant waived his right to self- representation during the penalty phase. Jury selection commenced on April 28, 2011 and concluded May 6, 2011.9 Twelve jurors and four alternates were selected. The State and the defendant gave opening statements on May 7, 2011. The State described how it believed the crime occurred, summarized the evidence it would present, explained how that evidence established the elements of the crime, and discussed the conditions of employment and confinement at Angola. The State conceded that the jury would “never . know which inmate wielded which weapon inside that bathroom.” The defendant’s opening statement to the jury stressed the State’s lack of evidence tying him to Capt. Knapps’ murder and lack of evidence of his specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, as well as issues related to crime scene contamination, the failure to properly collect evidence from the crime scene, bias among the State’s witnesses, and correctional officer misconduct by abusing inmates in securing control of the education building and investigating the crime. 7 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 8 The Honorable Jerome M. Winsberg, Judge Ad Hoc, presided over the defendant’s second trial. 9 The jury venire was comprised of residents from St. Tammany Parish because the trial court granted the co-defendants’ motion to change venue with respect to jury selection due to the extensive ties between the residents of West Feliciana Parish and Angola. 4 During the guilt phase, the State presented the testimony of thirty-three lay and expert witnesses, and the defense called twelve witnesses. Much of the testimony focused on whether Angola’s tactical team used excessive force in retaking control of the education building and whether correctional officers abused inmates in the days that followed Capt. Knapps’ death. The jury also visited the crime scene. This case is unusually complex, given the number of inmates and correctional officers involved in the events leading up to the foiled escape attempt, the murder of Capt. Knapps, the various locations at which these events unfolded, the extended time frame over which these events occurred, the co-defendants’ control of the crime scene and evidence prior to the correctional officers regaining control, and the volume and variety of peripheral issues that have arisen over the course of the succeeding two decades. A summary of the evidence heard by the jury follows. In October of 1999 inmate Joel Durham approached inmate Doyle Billiot about joining a plan to escape Angola, which included inmates Carley, Edge, Mathis, and Brown. Billiot learned the inmates planned to execute their escape plan during evening call-outs in the Camp D education building on December 28, 1999, and the defendant had agreed to join the escape team. The addition of the defendant to the plot coincided with circumstances that had led him to believe his goal of becoming a trustee in January or February of 2000 was unlikely, which upset him and had made him amenable to the escape plot.