Abbott v. State, 311
| Decision Date | 14 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 311,311 |
| Citation | 231 Md. 462,190 A.2d 797 |
| Parties | Franklin M. ABBOTT v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
R. Bruce Alderman, Towson, for appellant.
Eli Baer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Frank H. Newell, III, State's Atty., and Charlton T. Howard, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore County, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
The defendant, Franklin M. Abbott, claiming that his confession was induced by the threats of the police to also charge him with murder unless he confessed committing armed robbery, has appealed his conviction of the robbery.
The defendant was arrested in the city by Baltimore City and Baltimore County police on April 24, 1962, for the armed robbery of a gasoline filling station at Middle River that had been perpetrated on February 17, 1961, by two unidentified men wearing masks over their faces. After being taken to a police station in the city, he was removed forthwith to the county police headquarters in Towson, and, upon arrival, was taken to the interrogation room where he was docketed on the charge of armed robbery.
At the outset of the interrogation, the defendant was told that he was under investigation not only for armed robbery but also for murder and that any statements he made could be used against him in court. He was further informed that he had been implicated in the robbery by one of two men 1 who were being held for investigation of several murders and that the police wanted to know whether the defendant was involved in the robbery and also whether he was involved in the murders. In order to convince the defendant that the police were holding the two men named for investigation of murder, the defendant was taken to the headquarters garage and shown the automobiles belonging to the suspected murderers.
During the interrogation period, which lasted from 1:10 p. m. until 5:40 p. m., the defendant (except for time out to have something to eat) was questioned about the murders as well as the robbery. Near the end of the session (and after the police had become satisfied that he was not involved in the murders), the defendant in an oral statement admitted his complicity in the armed robbery and the statement, when it had been typed in question and answer form, was signed by the defendant.
With respect to the voluntary character of the confession, the defendant testified that he had been manhandled by one of his inquisitors, but the police denied that any one had laid a hand on him during the investigation. The defendant also testified that he refused to sign the written statement until he was allowed to communicate with his wife, but, upon being questioned by the court, he admitted that he signed the statement before he talked with his wife. The defendant further testified that the police threatened to charge him with murder if he did not confess to the robbery, but the police, though admitting that they had questioned the defendant about the murders, denied that they had made him any promises or threatened him in any way. The police further testified that after questioning him about the murders for a while, they were satisfied that he was not involved in them.
The trial court, having found as a fact that the defendant had not been treated roughly, that he did not sign the statement as a result of a promise by the police, and that the confession had not been obtained by threats that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...regret that the convict had not confessed, and the Court held the resulting confession inadmissible). See also Abbott v. State, 231 Md. 462, 190 A.2d 797 (1963). Under the principle applied in the above cases, if the police or the Assistant State's Attorney had simply told Coley that a conf......
-
State v. Kidd
...must be obtained without force applied, coercion used, hope held out or promise made on the part of the authorities. Abbott v. State, 231 Md. 462, 465, 190 A.2d 797 (1963). In other words, a confession or admission is not "voluntary" if it is the product of physical or psychological coercio......
-
Lodowski v. State
...it is obtained without force applied, coercion used, hope held out or promise made on the part of the authorities. Abbott v. State, 231 Md. 462, 465, 190 A.2d 797 (1963). Pertinent to the question of voluntariness is the entitlement of the defendant to the assistance of counsel during the i......
-
Kidd v. State
...an accused, the State must prove that it was voluntary and not the product of force, threats, promises or inducements. Abbott v. State, 231 Md. 462, 190 A.2d 797; Cooper v. State, 1 Md.App. 190, 228 A.2d 840. Otherwise stated, to be voluntary, a statement cannot be 'extracted by any sort of......