Robert Leland Hurt v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Felton, Judges Elder and Kelsey
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
ROBERT LELAND HURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 2802-06-1 	CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR.
MARCH 18, 2008
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
William R. O’Brien, Judge
Tanya Bullock (Meggan B. Sullivan; Bullock & Cooper, on brief),
for appellant.
Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II (Robert F.
McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Robert L. Hurt (appellant) was convicted of first-degree murder in violation of Code
§ 18.2-32, and arson of an occupied dwelling in violation of Code § 18.2-77. He contends the trial
court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress statements he made to detectives on March
25 and 26, 2005. He contends that, because he was under the influence of Geodon, an
anti-psychotic drug, as well as crack cocaine, at the time he made inculpatory statements to
detectives, he was incapable of understanding the nature of the Miranda rights, and the
consequences of waiving those rights. He also contends the trial court erred in concluding the
evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict him of first-degree murder. For the following
reasons, we affirm appellant’s convictions.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
I. BACKGROUND
“On appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence presented below
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom.” Medley v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 19, 24, 602 S.E.2d 411, 413
(2004) (en banc). So viewed, the evidence established that on March 23, 2005, Freddie Beebe
came to appellant’s trailer home and demanded appellant pay past drug debts. Appellant brutally
struck him multiple times in the head with a metal pipe, before beating and kicking him into
unconsciousness.1 Once Beebe lost consciousness, appellant put a plastic bag over his head and
sealed the bag around his neck. Appellant then wrapped Beebe’s body in a carpet and concealed
it in a bedroom so that his girlfriend, who he had sent away when Beebe arrived, would not see it
on her return. Appellant remained secluded in the trailer home with the body, refusing to
respond to anyone coming there.
Two days later, police officers responded to an anonymous request to check on the
occupants of appellant’s trailer home. When the officers arrived, appellant told them they
“need[ed] to back the f**k off” and that if they did not leave, he would “blow his trailer up.”
The officers smelled gaseous fumes, retreated for their safety, and called the Special Weapons
and Tactics (SWAT) unit.2 After a protracted standoff, the SWAT team eventually entered the
home and dragged appellant from the laundry room, which he had set on fire, and arrested him.3
1 At the time, appellant was six feet four inches tall and weighed 210 pounds. Beebe was
five feet six inches tall and weighed 165 pounds. The beating was so severe that Beebe’s sisters
did not recognize him when they were asked to identify the body.
2 The SWAT team is a unit within the police department specially trained for dealing
with hostage and crisis situations.
3 While putting out the fire, firefighters discovered Beebe’s body.

- 3 -
Appellant was taken to the hospital for treatment at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening.
He was “[v]ery alert and oriented” when he arrived, but was also “very agitated, combative and
cussing.” At 8:43 p.m. appellant received an injection of twenty milligrams of Geodon4 to calm
him so that medical personnel could treat his injuries.5
After being treated for his injuries, appellant was taken to the police station where he was
questioned about the death of Beebe. Detective Hall of the Virginia Beach Police read appellant
the Miranda rights from a pre-printed card at 11:03 p.m., and appellant stated that he understood
the rights read to him. Appellant admitted to killing Beebe, but claimed he killed Beebe in
self-defense. At 11:30 p.m., appellant spoke with a fire investigator, Detective Miner, and
claimed the fire was an accident. When Miner spoke with him the following afternoon around
4:30 p.m., appellant admitted he deliberately set the fire to prevent the police from entering his
home and arresting him.
Appellant was indicted for first-degree murder and arson of an occupied dwelling. He
moved to suppress the pre-trial statements he gave to police and fire detectives on March 25 and
26, arguing that he never made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. After the
trial court heard testimony from the detectives, as well as a psychiatrist and toxicologist
regarding the effects of Geodon and crack cocaine used in combination, it denied the motion.
Appellant subsequently testified at trial. He admitted that he killed Beebe and that he
intentionally set fire to his home.
4 Geodon was described at trial as an anti-psychotic drug used in hospitals to calm
patients to permit treatment.
5 Appellant had abrasions on his face, burns on his arms, and superficial, self-inflicted
wounds on his wrists. Before appellant received Geodon, he admitted to his girlfriend, an
emergency medical technician (EMT), a police detective, and the treating nurse that he killed
Beebe.

- 4 -
After a two-day bench trial, the trial court convicted appellant of first-degree murder and
arson of an occupied dwelling. On appeal, appellant asks this Court to determine whether:
(1) he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights; and (2) whether the evidence was
sufficient to prove he acted with premeditation and deliberation to sustain his conviction for
first-degree murder.
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that because he was under the influence of Geodon and crack cocaine
when he was questioned, he was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his
Miranda rights. He argues that he did not understand the nature of the rights being abandoned and
the consequences of his decision to abandon those rights.6
Longstanding principles of federal constitutional law
require that a suspect be informed of his constitutional rights to the
assistance of counsel and against self-incrimination. These rights
can be waived by the suspect if the waiver is made knowingly and
intelligently. The Commonwealth bears the burden of showing a
knowing and intelligent waiver.
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 423, 432, 587 S.E.2d 532, 540 (2003) (internal citations
omitted). “[T]he inquiry whether a waiver of Miranda rights was made knowingly and
intelligently is a question of fact, and the trial court’s resolution of that question is entitled to a
presumption of correctness.” Harrison v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 576, 581, 423 S.E.2d 162,
163 (1992). “‘[The trial court] evaluates the credibility of the witnesses, resolves any conflicts in
testimony, and weighs the evidence as a whole. This factual inquiry will not be disturbed on appeal
unless plainly wrong.’” Id. at 581, 423 S.E.2d at 163 (quoting Watkins v. Commonwealth, 229 Va.
469, 477, 331 S.E.2d 422, 429-30 (1985) (alteration in original).
6 Appellant concedes that his decision to talk with police and fire investigators was
voluntary and not the result of police intimidation or coercion.

- 5 -
Here, the treating physician determined that injecting appellant with Geodon was medically
necessary to allow medical personnel to treat him. Both the treating nurse and Detective Hall
testified that they did not notice a significant change in appellant’s demeanor after the
medication was administered and that he was still “alert and oriented” during treatment. While
the videotaped interrogation shows appellant appearing tired and groggy during his questioning
by Detective Hall, he answered each of her questions topically, and even corrected her when she
misunderstood him. His statements regarding the killing of Beebe were consistent with what he
told his girlfriend, an emergency medical technician (EMT), a police detective, and the treating
nurse prior to his being given Geodon. The evidence also showed appellant’s awareness of the
consequences of his talking with police about the incident, as demonstrated by his initial denials
that he intentionally started the fire in his trailer home and his repeated assertions that Beebe had
attacked him.
At the suppression hearing, two expert witnesses testified concerning the likely effects of
administering twenty milligrams of Geodon to appellant, who had crack cocaine in his system, at
the hospital shortly after his arrest. Dr. Saady, an expert in toxicology, testifying for the
Commonwealth, explained that twenty milligrams of Geodon is a “routine therapeutic dose” and
that dosage was not high enough to override appellant’s ability to express his own will or
self-determination. Appellant’s expert, Dr. Thrasher, a psychiatrist, concluded that Geodon can
diminish a person’s ability to understand abstract thoughts and control self-protective
mechanisms, but stopped short of saying that the dosage of Geodon administered to appellant
would render him unable to understand the Miranda warnings, or prevent him from knowingly
and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights.
In addition to hearing testimony from two experts regarding the effects of administering
Geodon to a person who had crack cocaine in his system, the trial court also viewed the

- 6 -
videotape of appellant’s interview with Detective Hall, which included appellant being given his
Miranda warnings. The trial court stated it listened very carefully to appellant’s answers to
questions, noting that when asked for his birth date and social security number, he correctly
answered each question, and that he was also able to discuss his employment history and how
long he had lived at his current residence. The trial court also noted that appellant was “no
stranger to the criminal justice system” having previous felony drug convictions. From the
totality of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, the trial court concluded that
appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights prior to giving statements to the
investigators. Where, as here, the record shows that the trial court weighed the evidence
presented by the experts, and viewed the videotaped recording of the giving and waiver of
Miranda rights, it could determine that the Miranda warnings were given, that appellant
knowingly and intelligently waived those rights, and that his subsequent statements to the police
were clear, responsive, and articulate. We conclude that the factual findings of the trial court are
supported by the record and not plainly wrong and that it did not err in finding that appellant
made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Accordingly, we find that it did
not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the statements he gave to police and fire
investigators on March 25 and March 26, 2005.
Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of deliberation
and premeditation necessary for a conviction of first-degree murder. At oral argument, appellant
conceded that if the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress and in admitting his
pre-trial statements, the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to prove that he was guilty of
first-degree murder.
Having determined that the trial court did not err in finding that appellant’s statements to
the police were admissible, we conclude that the evidence presented a trial was sufficient from

- 7 -
which a rational trier of fact could conclude appellant willfully, deliberately, and with
premeditation, killed Beebe. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction of first-degree murder.
III. CONCLUSION
From our review of the record, we conclude appellant knowingly and intelligently waived
his Miranda rights when he gave statements to police and fire detectives related to Beebe’s murder.
We also conclude the record on appeal contains credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of first-degree murder. Accordingly, we affirm
appellant’s convictions.
Affirmed.