2009-10-01

Hodson’s statement in pizza murder case to stay

By Judith Pannebaker

District Judge Keith Williams has denied Karl Anthony Hodson’s – the so-called “pizza murderer” – request to suppress a statement taken by Lt. Louis Martinez of the Kendall County Sheriff’s Office in July 2007.

Although it could not be confirmed, reports indicate that Hodson had implicated himself in the crime while speaking to Martinez.

Hodson, 24, a former resident of Lakehills, is accused of capital murder in the stabbing death of Leon Poe, 27, of San Antonio, a pizza deliveryman, on July 22, 2007.

During a Thursday, Sept. 17, hearing in Gillespie County, Hodson’s attorneys, Kurt Rudkin of Boerne and Wayne Huff of San Antonio, asked that their client’s statement to Martinez be excluded since Hodson had apparently invoked his right to counsel when magistrated earlier.

Although the alleged murder took place in Kendall County, then- Bandera County Sheriff’s Office Deputies Brian Blackburn and Charles Wehmeyer apprehended Hodson at 8:17 am on Wednesday, July 25. A warrant had been issued for his arrest and the law enforcement officers pursued the suspect on foot across a baseball field in Lakehills.

Later that morning, Bandera County Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace Eino Zapata magistrated Hodson. At that time, the defendant indicated that he required a court-appointed attorney since he was unable to afford counsel.

Arguing that this request had the same result as if his client had invoked his Miranda rights, Rudkin said, “This meant Mr. Hodson could not be interrogated further, but within hours, he was interrogated. When a suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel, it means hands off.”

After his magistration, Hodson was taken to the Kendall County Jail. Martinez interviewed the suspect shortly after he was booked into the facility.

“If a suspect invokes counsel, there can be no further interrogation unless the suspect initiates contact,” noted Lucy Wilke, 216th Judicial District assistant district attorney. “If that is the case, his Sixth Amendment rights can be waived.” She argued that what had happened during Martinez’s interview superceded what had occurred at the preliminary hearing with Zapata.

“What happens at a preliminary hearing stays at a preliminary hearing,” Wilke said.

Prior to the interview, Martinez read Hodson his Miranda rights; however, Hodson elected to speak with him.

Rudkin reiterated, “Once a defendant in custody invokes his right to counsel, interrogation must cease and cannot be re-initiated without counsel being present. This is a black and white violation of the Minnick decision.”

Rudkin’s argument was based on a Supreme Court decision in the Robert S. Minnick v. Mississippi case decided in 1990, which held: “where the accused had requested and been provided counsel, re-initiation of an interrogation in an interview which the accused was compelled to attend without counsel was impermissible.”

According to Wilke, however, in Texas, the Minnick decision does not apply at the preliminary hearing, e.g., Hodson’s magistration. “It applies once law enforcement approaches the defendant to interrogate him,” she said in a later interview.

Taking the stand, Martinez affirmed that Hodson, after being apprised of his rights, had waived those rights and agreed to the interview.

In his decision, based on a US Supreme Court opinion on Montejo v. Louisiana case, Williams ruled that Hodson’s statement to Martinez was admissible.

The Supreme Court ruling, handed down May 29, states, in part: “A defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings.”

Clearly pleased with Williams’ ruling, Wilke wrote in an email, “I am so very, very pleased with the holding in the Montejo case. I think it makes sense.” She also expects Hodson’s capital murder trial to begin shortly.

The timing also worked to the state’s advantage.

“While delays in getting cases quickly to trial can be – and usually is – detrimental, in this instance, it was a good thing,” Wilke wrote. “Had this case been tried before May 26, it would be a completely different trial than now with the second statement being admissible. This is one of the few instances where a delay was a good thing and actually helped the state’s case.”

However, using the Montejo case may become problematic down the line for the prosecution because Louisiana is one of about 25 states that automatically provide counsel to the accused without a formal request by the defendant, opined a jurist not involved in the Hodson case.

As per Texas Penal Code, a capital murder charge is warranted if murder is intentionally committed in the course of a robbery. Apparently, after the pizza deliveryman was killed, Hodson and his girlfriend and accomplice, Jenilee Sheppard of San Antonio allegedly took money and the still-warm pizza.

By press time, it could not be determined if Rudkin would request a re-hearing on the motion to suppress his client’s statement to Martinez.