Lawrence v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Awich JA,Ducille Ja,Ducille JA |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | BZ 2018 CA 10 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Belize) |
| Date | 22 June 2018 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2018
The Hon. Mr. Justice Sir Manuel Sosa —President
The Hon. Mr. Justice Samuel Awich —Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Justice Murrio Ducille —Justice of Appeal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2014
Mr. Yohhahnseh Cave for the Appellant
Ms. Sheiniza Smith, Senior Crown Counsel, along with Mr. Cecil Ramirez, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Respondent
Criminal Law - Murder — Sentence of life imprisonment — Fresh evidence — Misdirection — Unsworn statement — Appeal — Whether application to introduce fresh evidence ought to be granted — Whether learned trial judge misdirected jury as to legal effect of unsworn dock statement — Whether sentence excessive — Conviction quashed — Sentence of 18 years imprisonment substituted — Court of Appeal Act, ss. 20, 33 — Criminal Code, ss. 108, 118.
MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF Awich JA and Ducille Ja
On May 22, 2014, the Appellant, was convicted of the murder of Mercedes Carrillo (the Deceased) after a trial before a judge and jury. The Prosecution not having applied for the death sentence, the learned trial judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment upon the Appellant. The Appellant filed a number of Grounds of Appeal, and later submitted an application to introduce fresh evidence before this court. The Respondent did not resist the application. The oral argument before us was solely concerned with that fresh evidence, and although counsel for the Appellant assured us that he relied upon the Appellant's other written submissions, he did not argue them before us.
The case for the prosecution was that the Deceased died from hypovolemic shock as a result of multiple stab wounds inflicted by the Appellant. The Appellant and the Deceased had a romantic relationship for about eight years. During part of that time, the Appellant lived with the Deceased and her three children at an address in Burrell Boom Village. Two of those children, Diana Carrillo and Christopher Carrillo, gave evidence at the trial.
Diana's evidence was that sometime around 11:30 p.m. to midnight on December 3, 2009, she was awakened by her little sister yelling. Diana ran out of her room and saw the Appellant attempting to push his way into the Deceased's room with the aid of a wooden chair. She and Christopher eventually managed to take the chair away from the Appellant who was, nonetheless, able to get into the Deceased's room. The Appellant began to punch the Deceased about the body. Diana and Christopher tried to pull him away but were unsuccessful. Diana ran to her phone and called 911, but the police never came. However, while Diana was still on the phone, the Appellant came to the door of her room, told her that he loves her mother, and asked her not to call the police. The Appellant then left the house.
Diana called her boyfriend, Daniel Pariente, then went to the dining table to start studying. She was still on the phone talking to him about an hour later, when the Appellant returned and knocked on the door. None of the occupants of the home opened it. The Appellant then broke open a hole in the door through which he entered the home. He began to curse the Deceased and pulled out a knife and stabbed her. The children tried to help the Deceased. Diana grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed the Appellant in the shoulder. Christopher struck the Appellant with a guitar. Both children succeeded in pulling the Appellant away from their mother and then ran to hide in the bathroom. Diana peeped through the door after about thirty seconds and saw the Appellant holding his head, while her mother knelt on the floor near the door.
Diana then ran out of the bathroom and grabbed the knife that was used to stab her mother which was on the kitchen table at the time. She knelt beside the Deceased who was moaning, while Christopher stood in front of them with the guitar. The Appellant then picked up a machete that was in the kitchen. However, he put it on the table, saying that if he can't have her, nobody else can have her and that he would kill for her.
Diana asked the Appellant to take the Deceased to the hospital. He complied, actually helping the children by dragging the Deceased to the car. The Appellant lifted her into the passenger seat. Diana got into the back seat. She brought both knives, the one used to stab the Deceased and the one she had used to stab the Appellant. She placed them on the floor of the car. At the hospital, the Deceased and The Appellant were both treated in the same room, but the Deceased had to be taken to surgery, where she died.
Under cross-examination, Diana disclosed that earlier that day, the Appellant and the Deceased had picked her up from her boyfriend's house. During the drive home, the Appellant appeared to be in a bad mood. She said that the incident that resulted in her mother's death was not the first time that the Appellant and the Deceased had had a domestic dispute. She also said that the Appellant was very jealous and that her mother could not speak to anyone without him getting upset.
Christopher's evidence about what transpired in the house was much the same as his sister's. He described hitting the Appellant on the back with the guitar, and said that although the Appellant appeared “normal”, the blows on his back “didn't seem to create any effect on him absolutely at all.” Under cross-examination, Christopher stated that earlier on the day of the incident, he was in his mother's car with his mother and the Appellant. He said that the Appellant was drinking Campari from a bottle while he was driving the car. The Deceased became annoyed and took the bottle away from the Appellant. Christopher also said that he knew that the Appellant used to smoke cannabis and drink liquor. Christopher described arriving at home and eating fried chicken with the Appellant and the Deceased and that everything appeared to be normal.
As a result of what he heard during his telephone conversation with Diana, Daniel Pariente went to the police station for help. Constable Japheth Young accompanied Daniel to the hospital. They actually followed the car driven by the Appellant. When they all arrived at the hospital, Constable Young noted that the Appellant was in need of medical attention, and also that he was not acting like a normal person; he seemed high. His voice was slurred, his eyes red and half-closed and he seemed sad and sorry. However, the constable did not notice that the Appellant smelled of alcohol or marijuana. The Appellant was treated for his injuries and was later arrested and charged with murder.
The Appellant's brother, Dale Guzman Thompson, also gave evidence that sometime between midnight and 12:30 am on December 4, 2009, the Appellant came to his home and asked for an axe to break up his girlfriend's vehicle. He also said that the Appellant smelt as if he had been drinking and smoking cocaine. He appeared nervous and anxious. Thompson went back to bed and later, when he awoke, he discovered that the Appellant had gone.
The Appellant gave an unsworn statement from the dock. He described going to his brother's apartment and asking for an axe. He stated that he never intended to kill the Deceased. He just wanted to damage her car. He said he had taken two to three hits of crack after the fight he had with his girlfriend, and also that he was drinking Campari and having a little bit of marijuana in between. He said that he then went to his other brother's apartment in the adjoining room. He lit a candle and saw a knife beside the candle, then he lay on the bed and prayed for almost half an hour. He said that he didn't get through, that the devil got the best part of him. He then got up and returned to his girlfriend's apartment and asked her for his documents, passports and social security. She spoke to him through the window and told him that the police were on the way the Appellant said that statement got to him. “Oh, all right police is on their way. I gave the police some work to do then.”
The Appellant then described punching a hole through the door with a cement block, storming in and inflicting stab wounds on his girlfriend. When he finished, he said he could not believe what he had done. He then put the Deceased in the car with the children's assistance and drove to the hospital. He described driving at almost 110 miles an hour on the highway. He said that he was sober enough to handle the highway. He also said that he could have escaped but he knew that he was guilty. He was also in pain from the stab wounds on his back, so he parked the car and went to the trauma room at the hospital.
The Appellant described sitting in the car and staring at the steering wheel and thinking. He said that he couldn't cry because he was numb or abnormal due to the influence of alcohol and drugs. He said that he was high, and he really loved his girlfriend and never intended to kill her. However, he got so angry that night that he couldn't hold himself back. The Appellant then started to say that he had committed an offence in prison and the learned trial judge stopped him with a warning about prejudice. However, the Appellant continued, recounting that at the current time in prison, he was put on psychiatric medication due to “psychiatric effects.”
The learned trial judge started his summation with some general directions including the respective duties of judge and jury and the burden of proof. He then recited part of section 117 of the Criminal Code and informed the jury that “[i]n this case, there is the issue of extreme provocation. The matter of partial excuse does not arise.” This was an unfortunate error on his part since the section as worded states
“117. Every person who intentionally causes the death of...
To continue reading
Request your trial