Appeal No. 245 (75) from Circuit Court for Kent County, In re
Decision Date | 28 November 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 245,245 |
Citation | 349 A.2d 434,29 Md.App. 131 |
Parties | In re APPEAL NO. 245(75) FROM the CIRCUIT COURT FOR KENT COUNTY, sitting as a Juvenile Court. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Michael James Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Floyd L. Parks, State's Atty., for Kent County, on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before ORTH, C. J., and POWERS and MASON, JJ.
Blackiston sat in the front seat and placed appellant in the back seat. Blackiston testified that he read all the Miranda warnings to appellant and that appellant said he understood them. There was evidence tending to show that the confession was voluntary in the traditional sense. Blackiston said that neither he nor Metcalfe made any threats, gave any promises or extended any inducements to appellant to get him to talk. Metcalfe, who had remained at the trailer to talk to the parents, appeared about the time Blackiston finished giving the Miranda warnings and sat in the front Appellant's father gave his version of what occurred:
seat next to Blackiston. The interrogation proceeded. Appellant gave a verbal statement.
He denied that the deputies told them why they wanted to talk to appellant.
Appellant told what occurred when the deputies arrived:
According to appellant, he, Blackiston and Metcalfe went out to the car at the same time. Metcalfe said, addressing appellant by his first name, '_ _ we've got some trouble around here and I think you know about it.' Then 'Q. Now, did they ever threaten to hit you?
Blackiston 'started reading off my rights.' Appellant denied, however, that anything was said about a lawyer. He said he went with the 'policemen' because he was afraid they would take him to Chestertown and lock him up. 6 On cross-examination the State pursued the matter of the voluntariness of the statement in the traditional sense
A. No sir.
Q. Or beat you?
A. No sir.
Q. Did they make any promises or do anything to you that was bad?
A. No sir.'
Blackiston was recalled by the State. He said that when he and appellant went to the car, Metcalfe remained at the trailer to talk to the parents. About ten or fifteen minutes elapsed before Metcalfe came to the car. Blackiston said that when he and appellant first arrived at the car 'I introduced myself and advised (appellant) that I wanted to talk to him about George Outten's home being broken into and some things being taken.' Blackiston iterated that he then gave the Miranda warnings, and that appellant said he understood them and waived them. On cross-examination, asked why he did not talk to appellant in the trailer about the Outten matter, Blackiston replied: 'I do it differently at times, but I generally take the people out in the car to talk.' He said he tried 'to deal with' both adults and juveniles the same way.
The judge below granted the motion to suppress the confession. Upon our independent constitutional appraisal, see Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 741-742, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966), we think it was properly excluded. We reach this conclusion for alternative reasons. The confession was inadmissible both because an effective waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to retained or appointed counsel was not shown, and because it was the fruit of a poisonous tree.
The judge below apparently relied on the failure to show a valid waiver of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel in holding that the confession was to be excluded. We are in accord. The rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) is that 'the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oregon v. Elstad
... ... When officers of the Polk County, Ore., Sheriff's Office picked up respondent at ... prosecution for burglary, the state trial court excluded from evidence his first statement ... to a jury, and his case was tried by a Circuit Court Judge. Respondent moved at once to suppress ... Bodner, 75 App.Div.2d 440, 448, 430 N.Y.S.2d 433, 438 ... His conviction was overturned on appeal because of the introduction of these confessions ... 245 (75), 29 Md.App. 131, 147-153, 349 A.2d 434, ... ...
-
Kidd v. State
... ... KIDD ... STATE of Maryland ... Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ... Nov. 3, ... root problem giving rise to the present appeal is the failure to appreciate that in 1966 the ... was 'dirty' because he was observed running from the scene. The officer testified, 'It he wasn't ... 62, 349 A.2d 393. In In Re Appeal No. 245, Term 1975, 29 Md.App. 131, at 149, 150, 349 A.2d ... ...
-
Com. v. Haas
... ... Gordon F. HAAS ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex ... Argued March 7, ... booked and certain belongings were removed from his [373 Mass. 549] person and inventoried ... 1971); In re Appeal No. 245, 29 Md.App. 131, 151, 349 A.2d 434 ... of the expert testimony of the Essex County medical examiner regarding the victims' time of ... ...
-
Ashford v. State
... ... No. 1856, Sept. Term, 2001 ... Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ... September ... , State's Attorney for Prince George's County of Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee ... This appeal will twice take us down memory lane, if "memory ... , "Ted," killed Youmans with a single blast from the shotgun owned by the appellant. Another ... and on the continuing legal education circuit, Aguilar-Spinelli was a burgeoning cottage ... In In Re Appeal No. 245, 29 Md.App. 131, 349 A.2d 434 (1975), we ... Wilson ), Notable British Trials Series 3, 75 ... ...