State v. McKnight
539 So. 2d 952, 1989 WL 14307 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's confession made during custodial interrogation is admissible if freely and voluntarily given after proper Miranda warnings, even if the defendant was emotionally distressed, unless the distress was so severe as to render her unable to voluntarily confess. While convictions for aggravated burglary require proof of unauthorized entry and intent to commit a felony, a sentence is unconstitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or shocks the sense of justice, especially for a first-time offender whose actions, though violent, did not cause serious physical injury and were influenced by significant emotional problems.
Facts:
- On August 28, 1987, Mary McKnight, a Texas resident, visited Ringgold, Louisiana, on her young granddaughter's birthday.
- After dining, McKnight drove to the Ringgold cemetery where her youngest son, who had committed suicide in 1986, was buried.
- Around 11:00 p.m., McKnight drove to the home of her ex-husband, Ross Edwards, and his present wife, Kathy Edwards, leaving her four-year-old granddaughter sleeping in her running car.
- McKnight, barefoot and with a fillet knife in a scabbard tucked in her dress belt, entered the glass-enclosed plant room of the Edwards residence and began pounding on the doors leading into the living room.
- Ross and Kathy Edwards were awakened by the pounding; Kathy observed McKnight "bouncing" against the door with her shoulder.
- McKnight forced her way into the living room, lunged at Kathy Edwards, grabbed her arms, and then pulled the knife from her belt and came at Kathy again.
- Ross Edwards grabbed McKnight from behind, at which point McKnight turned, uplifted the knife, and stabbed him in the upper part of his right arm.
- After being stabbed, Ross Edwards pushed McKnight over the back of the couch and subdued her, causing her to drop the knife.
Procedural Posture:
- Police were summoned by Mrs. Edwards' family after the incident.
- Officer Troy Sanders advised Mary McKnight of her Miranda rights at the Ringgold Sheriff's Substation.
- During transport to the Arcadia jail, McKnight made several inculpatory statements that were recorded by a hidden tape recorder.
- On September 11, 1987, a bill of information was filed, charging Mary McKnight with aggravated burglary.
- McKnight was tried by a twelve-person jury from February 16-18, 1988, which unanimously found her guilty as charged.
- On April 5, 1988, the trial court denied McKnight's motions for post conviction judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.
- On the same day, the trial court sentenced McKnight to serve fifteen years at hard labor.
- Mary McKnight, as appellant, appealed her conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, with the State of Louisiana as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a defendant's emotional distress or lack of explicit warning about recorded statements render an otherwise Mirandized, voluntary, and intelligent confession inadmissible? 2. Was there sufficient evidence to establish (1) an "unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling" and (2) the "intent to commit a felony" at the moment of entry, as required for a conviction of aggravated burglary? 3. Is a fifteen-year sentence for aggravated burglary, imposed on a first-time felony offender with a stable employment history and emotional problems, unconstitutionally excessive when compared to sentences in similar cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lindsay
No, a defendant's emotional distress or lack of explicit warning that statements would be recorded does not render an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible if the defendant was properly advised of Miranda rights, understood them, and spoke freely, unless the distress was so severe as to prevent voluntary confession. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that McKnight's statements were freely and voluntarily given, noting that officers testified she was properly advised of her Miranda rights and stated she understood them. Despite some evidence of beer consumption and emotional distress, officers observed no signs of intoxication, and McKnight herself testified she was not tricked or forced to talk but was "rattling on" of her own free will, demonstrating sufficient rationality to express concern for her granddaughter and property. The court also rejected the argument that the partially recorded tape was not the best evidence or that its playing was unduly prejudicial, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice, and the lack of victim recordings irrelevant. (Citing LSA-R.S. 15:451, LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 703, Miranda v. Arizona, State v. Beck, and State v. Vinet).
Majority - Justice Lindsay
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to establish both "unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling" and "intent to commit a felony" for the aggravated burglary conviction. The court found McKnight's entry through the French doors into the living room was unauthorized because the Edwardses did not voluntarily and intelligently consent to her entry, particularly given the late hour, their prior relationship, and McKnight's aggressive purpose. The court also found sufficient evidence of intent to commit a felony, inferring it from the circumstances of the transaction (LSA-R.S. 15:445). McKnight arrived armed with a knife, stating she intended to "shake Kathy" and potentially use the knife on Mr. Edwards. The jury could reasonably infer an intent to kill or commit aggravated battery, which are felonies, or even second-degree battery, also a felony. The jury's credibility determination, favoring the Edwards' testimony over McKnight's self-defense claim, was upheld as not clearly wrong. (Citing Jackson v. Virginia, LSA-R.S. 14:60, and State v. Lozier).
Majority - Justice Lindsay
Yes, a fifteen-year sentence for aggravated burglary for Mary McKnight, a first-time felony offender, was unconstitutionally excessive. While the trial court articulated reasons for the sentence, the court of appeal concluded that a sentence of one-half the maximum statutory term was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and shocked the sense of justice, especially when compared to similar cases involving defendants with prior criminal records or more severe conduct. The court emphasized McKnight's lack of a prior criminal record, stable employment history, and significant emotional problems (unresolved feelings about her son's suicide and hostility toward the Edwards family) which contributed to her actions. Although the crime was violent, it did not result in serious physical injuries. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, recommending that the sentencing judge consider a sentence that addresses McKnight's apparent need for psychiatric evaluation and possible treatment. (Citing La. Const. 1974 Art. 1, § 20, LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1, State v. Bonanno, State v. Roberts, State v. Robinson, State v. Atley, and State v. Kenney).
Analysis:
This case clarifies key legal standards for criminal procedure and sentencing. It establishes a high bar for suppressing confessions, affirming that emotional distress alone is not sufficient unless it renders the individual incapable of voluntary speech, even if a recording device is covert. Furthermore, it reinforces that intent for aggravated burglary can be reasonably inferred from circumstantial evidence, particularly the defendant's actions and statements upon entry. Most significantly, the opinion underscores the appellate court's crucial role in reviewing sentences for proportionality, ensuring trial courts adequately weigh mitigating factors—such as a lack of prior criminal record and severe emotional distress—against the severity of the crime, and preventing sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' or 'shock the sense of justice' by comparing to similar cases. This provides a strong precedent for individualized sentencing review and potential judicial intervention for mental health considerations in sentencing.
