In one of two opinions issued today, the Supreme Court applies constitutional harmless error analysis to reinstate a second-degree murder conviction.
Jamar Paxton was convicted of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the murder of his girlfriend Dominique Danzy. During police interrogation, Paxton invoked his right to remain silent, saying,
“I don’t wanna talk no more.” The arresting officer, however, continued questioning him. Paxton then made incriminating statements, admitting that he shot Danzy.
Before trial, Paxton filed a motion to suppress these statements, arguing that the arresting officer elicited them after he had invoked his right to remain silent. The trial court disagreed, however, finding that Paxton had reinitiated the interrogation.
At trial, in addition to Paxton’s incriminating statements, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Paxton purchased a .22 caliber rifle with Danzy the day she died; Danzy was shot multiple times, including a fatal head wound, with bullets from Paxton’s rifle; the rifle was found in Danzy’s car trunk, covered in blood; Paxton’s DNA was on the rifle’s trigger; Danzy’s keys were found in Paxton’s backpack after his arrest; and a matching cartridge casing was also found in his backpack. The Commonwealth’s DNA expert acknowledged that there was a “very miniscule amount of DNA” on the rifle that could not be accounted for by Paxton or Danzy, but noted that this DNA could have been transferred from the person who sold the rifle. (Paxton argued that Danzy’s stepfather killed her.)
Paxton appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which reversed his conviction, holding that the arresting officer had violated Paxton’s Miranda rights by continuing the interrogation after he invoked his right to remain silent.
The Commonwealth appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the conviction, but not based on a violation of Paxton’s right to silence. Rather, the Supreme Court found that even if admission of Paxton’s incriminating statements were error, any error was harmless. It noted that the prosecution had explicitly downplayed the confession during its closing arguments, calling it “just icing on the cake.” While Paxton had also claimed self-defense, the evidence belied this claim as Danzy was shot in the back and side of the head. Finally, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established Paxton’s guilt. The Supreme Court dispensed with the evidence that DNA from another source was found on the rifle, finding the DNA expert’s testimony “implied that the additional DNA types found on the rifle were insignificant.” Thus, applying constitutional harmless error analysis, any rational jury would have found Paxton guilty based solely on the physical evidence, without admission of his incriminating statements.
A Virginia Appellate Law Blog 