Battaglia v. State
| Decision Date | 01 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 257,257 |
| Citation | 119 Md.App. 349,705 A.2d 36 |
| Parties | Salvatore BATTAGLIA v. STATE of Maryland. , |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Diane E. Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Sandra A. O'Connor, State's Atty. for Baltimore County, Towson, on the brief), for Appellee.
Argued before HOLLANDER, SALMON and KENNEY, JJ.
On December 16, 1996, appellant, Salvatore Battaglia, was convicted in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of two counts of second degree sexual assault and one count of third degree sexual assault. On February 11, 1997, the court sentenced appellant to two concurrent eight year prison terms for each of the second degree sexual offenses and a three year concurrent prison term for the third degree sexual offense. Appellant noted a timely appeal, asking this Court to address one question:
Did the trial court err by ruling that the prosecution did not have to prove that the electronic equipment used to intercept and record appellant's self-incriminating statement to the victim during their telephone conversation was registered in compliance with Md.Code Ann. (1989, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1997 Cum.Supp.), § 10-411 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
We hold that the trial court did not err in ruling that proof of registration was not required prior to admitting the taped conversation into evidence. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
According to the seventeen-year-old victim, he was molested by appellant on two separate occasions when he was twelve years old. The victim, however, did not inform his parents about the incidents until several years after they had occurred. The victim's parents subsequently contacted the Baltimore County Police Department, which initiated an investigation of appellant.
As part of the investigation, the police asked the victim to telephone appellant and ask him questions concerning the alleged incidents; the call was placed from police headquarters so that it could be recorded. At trial, the State offered the tape recorded conversation between the victim and appellant into evidence. Appellant objected to the playing of the tape and its introduction into evidence on the ground that the State failed to prove that the device used to record the conversation had been registered in compliance with C.J. § 10-411. The court overruled the objection and admitted the tape into evidence.
In Maryland, the admissibility of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance is governed by Md.Code (1989, 1995 Repl.Vol., 1997 Cum.Supp.), §§ 10-401 through 10-414 of the Court and Judicial Proceedings Article (C.J.) (the Maryland Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act). C.J. § 10-405 provides, in relevant part:
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of the communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this subtitle.
In addition, C.J. § 10-411 provides:
(a) In general.-- Law enforcement agencies in the State shall register with the Department of State Police all electronic, mechanical or other devices whose design renders them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications which are owned by them or possessed by or in the control of the agency, their employees or agents. All such devices shall be registered within ten days from the date on which the devices came into the possession or control of the agency, their employees or agents.
(b) Information required.-- Information to be furnished with such registration shall include the name and address of the agency as well as a detailed description of each device registered and further information as the State Court Administrator may require.
(c) Serial number.-- A serial number shall be issued for each device registered pursuant to this section, which number shall be affixed or indicated on the device in question.
In light of the these two provisions, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it admitted the tape recorded conversation between appellant and the victim without requiring the State to prove that the equipment used to record the device had been registered pursuant to C.J. § 10-411. 1 In support of this contention, appellant relies on this Court's holding in Tapscott v. State, 106 Md.App. 109, 664 A.2d 42 (1995), aff'd,343 Md. 650, 684 A.2d 439 (1996).
In Tapscott, we considered whether the failure of law enforcement officials to register recording equipment prior to recording a conversation precluded the recorded conversation from being introduced into evidence. In that case, unlike the present case, however, there was evidence indicating that, although the equipment was not registered before it was used to record the conversation, it was registered within ten days of being purchased, as required by the statute. We held that the trial court properly admitted the recorded conversation, stating that
the statute mandates registration, not before the law enforcement agency uses the equipment, but 'within ten days from the date on which the devices came into the possession or control of the agency....' Therefore, because the equipment was registered within the required time frame, there was no violation of the statute.
Tapscott, 106 Md.App. at 133, 664 A.2d 42.
Appellant interprets the holding in Tapscott implicitly to require the suppression of any evidence obtained by using equipment not first registered in accordance with C.J. § 10-411. We do not agree. In fact, because the equipment used in Tapscott was timely registered, we did not consider the appropriate sanction for failing to comply with that provision. Thus, on the issue currently before this Court, Tapscott provides marginal insight.
There being no case directly on point, we must necessarily conduct an examination of the entire Maryland Wiretap Act to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. State v. Pagano, 341 Md. 129, 133, 669 A.2d 1339 (1996) (). To accomplish this endeavor, we must necessarily read C.J. §§ 10-405 and 10-411 in light of the other provisions of the Act, which are relevant to the admission of evidence.
In the present case, the interception and recording of the conversation between appellant and the victim was authorized under C.J. § 10-408, which outlines the requirements for obtaining an ex parte order to intercept communications via surveillance equipment. In addition to establishing specific requirements for each application for an order authorizing the interception of communication, C.J. § 10-408 provides:
(h) Prerequisites to use contents of communication as evidence.-- The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derry v. State
...Appeals held that the resolution of the State's appeal of the trial court's grant of suppression was controlled by Battaglia v. State, 119 Md.App. 349, 705 A.2d 36 (1998), a decision unavailable to the Circuit Court at the time of its ruling.8 The Battaglia court had determined the registra......
-
Matta v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
... ... Id. The purpose of Maryland's compulsory insurance law is to ensure that those who own and operate motor vehicles registered in the State are financially able to pay compensation for damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents. Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 341 Md ... ...