Ball v. State

• Citation: 347 Md. 156,699 A.2d 1170
• Decision Date: 01 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. 59,59
• Parties: Wallace BALL v. STATE of Maryland. ,
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 156

347 Md. 156

699 A.2d 1170

Wallace BALL v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 59, Sept. Term, 1996.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 10, 1997.

Michael R. Braudes, Arthur A. DeLano, argued, Assistant Public Defenders (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for Appellant

Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, ^* RAKER and WILNER, JJ.

CHASANOW, Judge.

This appeal is before the Court pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 414. The appellant, Wallace Dudley Ball, was tried by jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County, the Honorable Joseph S. Casula presiding, for the murder of Debra Anne Goodwich and related offenses. The jury found Appellant guilty of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, second degree murder, robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, robbery, daytime housebreaking, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. Appellant elected to be sentenced by the judge and received a sentence of death for the first degree murder conviction. With regard to the lesser offenses, Appellant was sentenced to a total of fifty years imprisonment. ¹

On this appeal of the imposition of the death penalty, Appellant presents eight issues for our review. In a somewhat different order from their presentation in Appellant's brief, they are:

(1) Whether the lower court erred in refusing to suppress Appellant's inculpatory statements to police.

(2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to compel disclosure to the defense of a video tape shown, for the purpose of training, to trial judges who preside over capital trials.

(3) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to propound a jury instruction on the offense of theft.

(4) Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction of robbery with a deadly weapon and the aggravating circumstance of murder in the course of a robbery.

(5) Whether the trial court erred in considering certain victim impact evidence at sentencing.

(6) Whether the trial court erred in admitting at sentencing evidence of Appellant's prior convictions for non-violent offenses, and of offenses not resulting in convictions.

(7) Whether the prosecution engaged in improper closing argument at sentencing.

(8) Whether Maryland's death penalty statute is unconstitutional.

Following a brief summary of the pertinent facts, we shall address the above issues, and their attendant sub-issues, seriatim.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At approximately 3:45 p.m. on September 30, 1994, Arlene Goodwich arrived at her Baltimore County residence to find her house ransacked and her nineteen-year-old daughter, Debra Anne Goodwich, dead of numerous gunshot wounds. A subsequent autopsy report revealed that Debra had been shot six times in the torso and once in the arm. Police officers who were called to the scene found evidence of a forced entry through a rear window of the Goodwich home. They also discovered that the telephone line had been cut and the alarm system disabled. Debra Goodwich, it was later determined, had interrupted a burglary in progress.

Preliminary investigation of the crime led to the questioning of Appellant, Wallace Dudley Ball, at his home on October 12, 1994. The identification of Appellant as a potential suspect apparently resulted from the police learning that the victim's father, Walter Goodwich, was the former employer of Appellant's wife, Sharon Ball. Shortly before the murder of Debra Goodwich, Ms. Ball had terminated her employment with Walter Goodwich's firm in the wake of allegations that she had embezzled firm funds. Appellant informed Baltimore County police detectives at this initial meeting that he had done some roofing work at the Goodwich home and that he knew the victim. Six months later, a warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest.

Following his arrest in Knoxville, Tennessee, on April 27, 1995, Appellant was interviewed by Terry Clowers, an investigator in the Criminal Investigation Division of the Knoxville Police Department. Investigator Clowers testified that he informed Appellant that he would be audio taping the interview and that he advised Appellant of his Miranda rights. Appellant indicated that he understood his rights and elected to waive them.

Soon after the interview began, however, Appellant motioned to Investigator Clowers to turn off the tape recorder. Investigator Clowers complied with this request. According to Investigator Clowers, Appellant then stated that he would continue the discussion, but that he did not wish to talk on tape. The information that Appellant provided to Investigator Clowers at that point did not implicate him in the crime.

Upon learning of Appellant's arrest, Baltimore County police detectives Carroll Bollinger and William Cordwell proceeded to Knoxville and arranged to question Appellant. At the beginning of the interview, at which Investigator Clowers also was present, Detective Bollinger verified that Appellant had been advised of and understood his Miranda rights. Appellant indicated that, indeed, he knew his rights and that he was willing to talk to the detectives.

The detectives then asked Appellant to review two documents that had been prepared by Detective Bollinger prior to his arrival in Knoxville. One of the documents read as follows:

"ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994, DEBBIE GOODWICH WAS BRUTALLY KILLED IN HER PARENT'S HOME.

WALLACE BALL

1.) IS A COLD BLOODED KILLER.

2.) HAS NO REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.

3.) KILLED DEBBIE GOODWICH FOR FUN.

4.) HAS BEEN LOOKING TO KILL SOMEONE FOR A LONG WHILE.

5.) WOULD KILL AGAIN BECAUSE HE LIKED IT.

6.) KILLED DEBBIE BECAUSE HE HATES WALTER GOODWICH."

In contrast, the other document stated:

"ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1994, ² DEBBIE GOODWICH WAS ACCIDENTALLY KILLED IN HER PARENT'S HOME.

WALLACE BALL

1.) HAS HAD A TOUGH LIFE.

2.) LOVES HIS SON, DILLON.

3.) KILLED DEBBIE GOODWICH BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID SHE COULD IDENTIFY HIM.

4.) WAS TRYING TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY WHICH IS WHY HE BROKE INTO THE GOODWICH HOME.

5.) UNFORTUNATELY BECAME HOOKED ON DRUGS.

6.) WALTER GOODWICH WAS AN UNREASONABLE MAN IN DEALING WITH WALLACE AND SHARON BALL.

7.) IS SORRY IN HIS HEART FOR KILLING DEBBIE GOODWICH.

8.) WISHES HE COULD CHANGE WHAT HAPPENED TO DEBBIE.

9.) DEBBIE STRUGGLED WITH HIM CAUSING HIM TO SHOOT HER WHICH HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO."

Detective Bollinger testified that, after Appellant read the documents, "[h]e placed them back on the table and he asked what do they do for me." Detective Bollinger explained to Appellant that they were two different ways of characterizing him. Soon thereafter, sensing that Appellant was uncomfortable with the presence of 3 police officers, Detective Bollinger asked Detective Cordwell and Investigator Clowers to leave the room.

After some discussion, Appellant confessed to Detective Bollinger that he had killed Debra Goodwich. The particulars of the oral confession were described by Detective Bollinger at a pre-trial hearing as follows:

"[BOLLINGER]: [Appellant] stated he had gone to the Goodwich residence the night before the burglary occurred and the homicide occurred, that he waited outside. Waited outside on the property, waited there all night long. Waited until the morning hours to see the residents leave.... At that point he felt it was safe to enter the residence, he broke in the residence.

Q: Did he do anything to disable anything?

[BOLLINGER]: Yes, Ma'am. Before entering the residence he cut the alarm wires and the phone wires for the residence. They had a security system, an alarm system. He cut those wires. He also cut the phone lines to the residence.

Q: And did he do anything while he waited outside all night?

[BOLLINGER]: Yes Ma'am. As he sat there and waited he had brought food along and he was eating barbecue chicken wings outside the residence, all night long.

Q: So after he cut the phone and burglar alarm wires how did he break in the house?

[BOLLINGER]: Through a basement window. * * * Once inside he wanted to make it look as if an amateur had committed the offense so he went into the kitchen area and dumped [a] household product like sugar on the ... floor to make it look like it was a juvenile committing the offense.

He even wore a pair of boots, roofer[']s boots that were larger in size than his actual foot. He did this because he had told me that once the burglary had been committed he thought the Goodwich[e]s would immediately assume that he was the one responsible....

Q: While he was burglarizing the home did he tell you there was a time somebody came home?

[BOLLINGER]: Yes, Ma'am, he said he heard someone state who is in here and at that point--

Q: Where was he at that time?

[BOLLINGER]: He was in the back bedroom I believe, master bedroom.

Q: And what did he hear?

[BOLLINGER]: His exact words to me, who is in here.

Q: What did he say next?

[BOLLINGER]: Stated that he moved toward the door, the front door and as he moved toward the front door the victim, Debra Goodwich, came around the corner and they almost bumped into each other. At that point he was startled, she was startled. At that point he shot her. He shot her a total of 6 times."

Appellant also told the detective that after he shot Debra Goodwich, he remained inside the Goodwich residence, collecting his thoughts, for approximately thirty minutes. He then fled the scene in the victim's car. Later, Appellant tossed incriminating evidence, consisting of jewelry, a pocket book, a gun, and a pair of boots, into Liberty Reservoir. These items and Debra Goodwich's vehicle eventually were recovered by police during the course of their investigation.

After Appellant orally confessed to the crimes, Detective Bollinger asked him if he would like to write a letter to the Goodwich family, explaining the events that had occurred....