307 Ga. 147
FINAL COPY
S19A0957. CAUSEY v. THE STATE.
BENHAM, Justice.
Appellant Frank Don Causey was convicted of malice murder
and sentenced to life in prison without parole in relation to the fatal
strangulation and drowning of Lydia Ivanditti.1 We affirm his
conviction.
1. Causey alleges the evidence was insufficient to convict him
because there was no evidence placing him at Ivanditti’s home at
the time of her death. In a light most favorable to upholding the
1 The crime occurred on or about December 2, 2016. On March 20, 2017,
a Putnam County grand jury returned an indictment charging Causey with
malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. The trial took place
before a jury between November 6 and 15, 2017. The jury returned verdicts of
guilty on all charges, and the trial court sentenced Causey to serve life in
prison without parole for malice murder. The conviction for felony murder was
vacated as a matter of law, and the charge of aggravated assault merged into
malice murder for sentencing purposes. Causey moved for a new trial on
November 20, 2017, and amended the motion on October 8, 2018. On October
9, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the motion as amended, and denied
the motion by order on January 22, 2019. Causey filed a timely notice of appeal
on February 13, 2019. Upon receipt of the record, the case was docketed to the
April 2019 term of this Court and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
jury’s verdict of guilty, the evidence at trial was as follows. On
December 1, 2016, Ivanditti left her mother’s house around 8:30 p.m.
When Ivanditti’s mother and daughter had not heard from her by
the afternoon of December 2, Ivanditti’s mother went to her house
to check on her. The mother discovered Ivanditti deceased in her
bathtub and called police. Ivanditti had been deceased for at least
four to six hours prior to discovery because her body was in full rigor
mortis. Ivanditti had bruising on her neck and on her forehead. The
medical examiner testified that Ivanditti died from manual
strangulation and drowning.
Inside the bathtub with Ivanditti’s body was an unplugged foot
massager with some blood on it.2 Next to the bathtub was a broken
glass pipe with traces of marijuana in it, a broken cell phone, and a
cell phone case. Authorities identified the blood on the battery of
the broken cell phone and the cell phone screen protector as
belonging to Causey. Some blood-spotted bath towels recovered
2 The test of the DNA from the blood on the foot massager was
inconclusive.
2
from the scene also tested positive for Causey’s DNA. The police
believed items in the bathroom had been arranged to make the scene
look like an accident, in particular the placement of the unplugged
foot massager on top of Ivanditti’s foot and the placement of the
components of the broken cell phone.
Causey had once lived with Ivanditti, who was known to allow
various people to live in a downstairs bedroom inside her Putnam
County house. A forensic review of Ivanditti’s phone records and
Causey’s phone records revealed that Causey, using a method to
block the identity of his phone number, contacted Ivanditti several
times on the night she was killed. Police confirmed that Causey
sometimes drove his partner’s blue Dodge Durango. The Durango
was seen at Ivanditti’s house around 8:00 p.m. on December 1. That
vehicle was also recorded by a nearby hardware store’s video
surveillance camera. The recording showed the vehicle leaving from
the direction of Ivanditti’s house around midnight on December 2.
Ivanditti’s neighbor testified that, at about 2:00 a.m. on December
2, she saw a person, whom she believed to be male, walk out of
3
Ivanditti’s house and over to a maroon SUV that was parked on
Ivanditti’s property. The evidence at trial showed that Causey
owned a maroon SUV, which he had left at Ivanditti’s house when
he had previously lived there.
After his arrest, Causey made inculpatory statements to police,
admitting that he saw Ivanditti on the night of her death, became
angry with her, “broke out in [a] rage,” and grabbed her by the neck
with his hands for 15 to 20 seconds. Causey said after he let go of
her neck, Ivanditti fell into the tub and was unresponsive. In
addition to these inculpatory statements, the State introduced
evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b), showing that Causey had
fought with past girlfriends, and, during those altercations, he
choked the women and either disabled their cell phones or took their
cell phones away from them.
The evidence described above was sufficient for a reasonable
trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Causey was
guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (
99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
4
2. Causey alleges the trial court erred when it admitted
custodial statements he made after he allegedly invoked his right to
remain silent.
Police must scrupulously honor a suspect’s right to
remain silent if the person clearly and unambiguously
states that he wants to end a custodial interrogation.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U. S. 370, 381-382 (
130 SCt
2250, 176 LE2d 1098) (2010); Perez v. State,
283 Ga. 196,
197 (
657 SE2d 846) (2008). “But if a defendant
equivocates in asserting the right, a police officer is under
no obligation to clarify or to stop questioning.” Ridley v.
State, 290 Ga. 798, 802 (4) (
725 SE2d 223) (2012) (citation
omitted).
Brown v. State, 304 Ga. 435 (2) (b) (
819 SE2d 14) (2018). The record
in this case does not support Causey’s assertion that he clearly and
unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.
Causey submitted to two custodial interviews. The first
custodial interview took place on December 20, 2016, the day of
Causey’s arrest, at the Eatonton Police Department (EPD) with GBI
Special Agent David Peebles, who was the lead investigator on the
case, EPD Investigator Lenwood Pickens, and, toward the end of the
interview, GBI Special Agent in Charge Joe Wooten. The second
5
custodial interview, which was partially video-recorded and fully
audio-recorded,3 took place on December 21 at the Putnam County
Sheriff’s office with GBI Special Agents Michael Maybin and
Peebles.
Upon holding a Jackson-Denno4 hearing and reviewing the
recordings of the custodial interviews, the trial court concluded that
Causey did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent
during the first custodial interview. Our review of the record
supports this conclusion. Immediately prior to commencing the first
custodial interview, authorities read Causey the Miranda5
warnings, and he agreed to talk without an attorney present.
Throughout the first custodial interview, Causey denied having
anything to do with Ivanditti’s murder. He also questioned
investigators about what evidence connected him to the crime. Just
3 The audio recording of the second custodial interview was played for
the jury at trial.
4 See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (III) (
84 SCt 1774, 12 LE2d 908)
(1964).
5 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (
86 SCt 1602, 16 LE2d 694)
(1966).
6
under an hour into the interview, after being admonished several
times that he could not go home because he was under arrest, but
also reminded that he was not required to talk to police, Causey told
agents to put the handcuffs on and take him to jail. At that point,
Agent Peebles and Investigator Pickens stepped out of the room.
Agent Wooten came in to tell Causey that they were getting ready
to book him and take him to jail. Agent Wooten advised Causey that
the authorities would only talk to him if he re-initiated the
interview. Causey asked for Agent Wooten’s business card and
requested a cigarette. Agent Wooten advised Causey that he could
smoke his cigarette and take five minutes to decide if he was
finished talking to police. Rather than taking five minutes to think,
Causey asked Agent Wooten to sit down. Once Agent Wooten sat
down, Causey started talking again and continued to ask more
questions about the evidence against him. Agent Peebles re-entered
the room as Causey continued speaking. At the end of the interview,
Causey told Agent Peebles he would talk to him “tomorrow at noon.”
Agent Maybin testified that, after the first custodial interview
7
had ended, he was on guard in the EPD booking area while Causey
was being booked. Agent Maybin testified Causey asked to speak to
him, and, during their brief exchange, Causey told Agent Maybin he
wanted to speak to the agent alone the next day at noon. In addition,
Causey gave Agent Maybin a handwritten note memorializing this
request.6 As Causey was being escorted from EPD to a transport
vehicle that would take him to the county jail, he said, in front of the
state trooper escorting him, “I did it, I did it.”
The next day, per Causey’s request, Agents Maybin and
Peebles interviewed Causey at the Putnam County Sheriff’s office.
Before this second custodial interview commenced, the officers again
reminded Causey of his rights pursuant to Miranda, and Causey
agreed to talk. During the second custodial interview, Causey
admitted to choking Ivanditti and leaving her unresponsive in her
bathtub.
The trial court’s determination that Causey did not clearly and
unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent during the first
6 The note was admitted into evidence at trial.
8
custodial interview is consistent with the record evidence. In spite
of making statements to the effect that he wanted to leave the police
station, Causey never stopped engaging officers in conversation,
even after being told repeatedly that he did not have to talk to
authorities. See Cook v. State, 274 Ga. 891 (4) (
561 SE2d 407) (2002)
(where defendant said he did not want to talk, but nevertheless
continued to do so, request to remain silent was equivocal). Once
the first custodial interview was over, Causey affirmatively told
officers he wanted to speak to them the next day at noon, indicating
that he had no intent to exercise his right to remain silent. See
id.
at 896 (the defendant’s initiation of further dialogue “evinced his
intent not to remain silent”); Johnson v. State,
301 Ga. 707 (III) (
804
SE2d 38) (2017) (statements a defendant made in a conversation he
initiated by asking to speak to officer were admissible). Causey also
made spontaneous utterances between the two custodial interviews
that he “did it.” Inasmuch as these utterances were unsolicited and
not responsive to any interrogation by authorities, they were
admissible. See Johnson,
301 Ga. at 711. Accordingly, there was no
9
reversible error regarding the admission of any statements Causey
made while in custody.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Warren, J.,
not participating.
DECIDED OCTOBER 21, 2019.
Murder. Putnam Superior Court. Before Judge Burleson.
Keri F. Thompson, for appellant.
10
Stephen A. Bradley, District Attorney, T. Wright Barksdale,
Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General,
Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K.
Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. Crowder,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
11
