Bitzer v. State

• Decision Date: 21 June 1968
• Docket Number: No. 241,241
• Parties: Elmer Tegeler BITZER v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 415

4 Md.App. 415

243 A.2d 33

Elmer Tegeler BITZER v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 241.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 21, 1968.

John W. Hessian, III, and Louis Peregoff, Towson, for appellant.

Edward S. Diggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Green, Jr. and Clewell Howell, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County respectively, on the brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

MORTON, Judge.

The Appellant was found guilty of assault and battery and not guilty of assault with intent to rape in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and sentenced to a term of five years.

The victim of the assault, a young school teacher, testified that during the afternoon of September 23, 1966, she was walking her two dogs along a public thoroughfare when an individual approached her on a motorbike, threw her to the ground, unzipped her slacks, but got up and left as a truck approached.

During the course of the trial, a detective of the Baltimore County Police Department was permitted, over objection, to testify that during an interview with the Appellant, an Air Force enlisted man, at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, he 'advised us that he was the subject that we wanted for this offense.' In this appeal, it is contended that the admission into evidence of this statement constituted reversible error since the State failed to establish that it was freely and voluntarily given by the Appellant.

Prior to relating the statement given by the Appellant, the detective testified that he and a fellow officer went to the Base and advised the Military Police of their desire to question the Appellant with respect to a crime committed in Baltimore County. The officers were referred to a civilian employee of the Office of Special Investigation who thereupon sent for the Appellant and the officers were permitted to interview him in private. The detective asserted that he advised the Appellant that he was suspected of having committed the crime of attempted rape in Baltimore County on September 23, 1966, and 'I read him his rights from the Miranda card that we are issued. * * * From this card, I read to the Defendant that he had the absolute right to remain silent. That anything he said would be used against him in a court of law. That he had a right to have an attorney before he was questioned, and present thereafter. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On the back of the card I asked the following questions. 'Do you understand each of the rights that I have explained to you?' He advised me yes. 'Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?' He stated yes. That is what I advised him.'

Counsel for the Appellant then objected to the officer testifying as to the statement thereafter given by the Appellant. The ground for the objection was that the Appellant had not been advised by the military authorities of his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In furtherance of this ground of objection the Appellant was called to the stand for the limited purpose of testifying to the fact that no member of the military establishment had advised him that he 'had a right to consult with the Staff Judge Advocate General' or had advised him that he 'did not have to talk to any civilian (police) officers.' The trial judge ruled that procedures required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice were not applicable to military personnel charged with a crime in Baltimore County and overruled the Appellant's objection. The Officer was then permitted to state that the Appellant 'advised us that he was the subject we wanted for this offense.'

The Appellant has abandoned the ground of his objection to this testimony which he advanced in the lower court and now, for the first time, argues that although the Miranda warnings were given to the Appellant, the State failed to go further and establish formally 'that no force or coercion was exercised by the officer obtaining the confession to cause the accused to confess' and that there was a failure to show that the statement was 'not produced by inducements engendering either hope or fear.' Thus, it is argued, the State failed to meet the burden of proving that the statement by the Appellant was freely and voluntarily given.

In support of this contention the Appellant relies upon Jackson v. State, 209 Md. 390, 121 A.2d 242. We are of the opinion that his reliance upon Jackson is misplaced. In Robinson v. State, 225 Md. 300, at 302, 170 A.2d 187 at 187, a similar contention was advanced and in holding that Robinson's statements were admissible, the Court said:

'The appellant now contends that these confessions or admissions were inadmissible because the State failed to meet the burden of proof that they were voluntary, citing Jackson v. State, 209 Md. 390, 121 A.2d 242, and Kier v. State, 213 Md. 556, 132 A.2d 494. Those cases are clearly distinguishable, for in them there was evidence of threats or intimidation which were virtually uncontradicted. In the instant case the accused took the stand, and at no time did he claim that any threats or promises were made. He admitted talking to Lieutenant Block and to Sergeant Jasper but denied making any admissions to them at all. Moreover, the record shows that no objections were made to the testimony of any of the officers on the ground that the confessions were involuntary. Cf. Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 586, 128 A.2d 634, and Moyer v. State, ...