Brooks v. State, 0148

• Decision Date: 17 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 0148,0148
• Parties: KENNETH A. BROOKS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

KENNETH A. BROOKS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 0148

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

March 17, 2016

UNREPORTED

Wright, Graeff, Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Appellant, Kenneth A. Brooks, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, and charged with the attempted first-degree murders of Roland Eisenhart, Casey Clingerman, Angel Clingerman, and Carly Faller, and other related counts. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of Roland Eisenhart, first-degree assault of Casey Clingerman, Angel Clingerman and Carly Fuller, respectively, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and retaliation against a witness in a felony case. After appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 70 years, he timely appealed and presents us with the following questions:

1. Did the motions court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress his statements to the police?

2. Did the trial court err in admitting inadmissible hearsay testimony?

3. Did the trial court err in admitting cumulative prejudicial photographs of the victim's injuries?

For the following reasons, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

Motions Hearing

Appellant was arrested on March 5, 2014, at approximately 9:00 a.m., in connection with a drive-by shooting that happened in the middle of a public street in Baltimore County, Maryland. At around 1:34 p.m., and after he was brought to police headquarters, appellant was interviewed by Baltimore County Homicide Detectives Adrienne Grant and Eric Dunton. Detective Grant explained that the reason for the delaybetween appellant's arrest and the interview was because police were towing a vehicle involved in the shooting and preparing and executing a search warrant for that vehicle.

A recording of portions of appellant's interview was presented to the motions court. On that recording, after Detective Grant introduced herself and her partner to appellant, the detective informed appellant that, before they could talk to appellant, they needed to "Mirandize" him.¹ Appellant stated that he knew about Miranda and confirmed that he had been arrested on a prior occasion on an unrelated matter.² After indicating that he did not graduate from high school, but had attended twelfth grade, the following ensued:

DETECTIVE GRANT: All right. All right, what I'm gonna have you do is just read these for me. All right. It just helps me understand (INAUDIBLE).

Out loud. I'm sorry.

MR. BROOKS: Oh.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Sorry.

MR. BROOKS: You have, you have the absolute right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to both a lawyer and an attorney before (INAUDIBLE) any questions. If you want a lawyer and cannot afford one you can request the court to appoint a lawyer (INAUDIBLE) to any questions. If you agree to answer questions you may stop at any time and no further questions will be asked to you.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay, do you understand all of that?

MR. BROOKS: Um hum.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Do you have any questions about any of those? You understand?

MR. BROOKS: I just want to know what's going on.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay, and that's what, we gotta get through this in order for us to discuss that in any length.

And just read this last one.

MR. BROOKS: I have read and understand the explanation of my rights. My decision to waive these rights and be interrogated is free and voluntary on my part, my part.

DETECTIVE GRANT: That means I'm not forcing you to talk to me, or lying to you about anything at this time; okay?

MR. BROOKS: Okay.

DETECTIVE GRANT: All right. All you do is sign there and sign underneath your name.

MR. BROOKS: I mean I don't know if, I don't even know what I'm here for. That's what I'm saying.

DETECTIVE DUNTON: That's, before we can even explain anything to you and answer your questions we have to do that because you're in our building. This is just a formality man.

MR. BROOKS: All right. So I mean -

DETECTIVE DUNTON: If we ask you something you don't want to talk about then we don't talk about it. So we won't talk about that. You'll figure it out.

MR. BROOKS: Go ahead.

At this point, the detectives then proceeded to inform appellant of his right to prompt presentment before a Court Commissioner:

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay. And that's what I said, that's why these are here. All right, and the second form. Have you been arrested before?

MR. BROOKS: Yeah.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay, so you've been arrested in the county?

MR. BROOKS: Yeah.

DETECTIVE GRANT: You know how you go before a commissioner, basically you get charged, you go before a commissioner, --

MR. BROOKS: Um hum.

DETECTIVE GRANT: They decide whether they want to put a bail on you, whether they want to release you on your own recognizance and all that?

MR. BROOKS: Um hum.

Detective Grant then proceeded to go over a waiver of prompt presentment form with appellant, as follows:

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay. This form basically explains the process and says that if you go to the commissioner obviously by sitting here and talking with us it just delays that time period. And it's saying that you understand that and you're, you understand that obviously if you're here talking to me you can't be sitting in the commissioner's office. Okay.

MR. BROOKS: (INAUDIBLE) with you you're saying -DETECTIVE DUNTON: If we talk for an hour you'll go to the commissioner in an hour. If that's the next (INAUDIBLE). If we talk for ten minutes you go to the commissioner ten minutes. [sic]

MR. BROOKS: (Inaudible).

DETECTIVE DUNTON: But they need a form to explain that to you.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Everything here has gotta be documented. That's just the way it is. So you can read that, and where it says judicial, judicial officer that's what a commissioner is.

MR. BROOKS: Okay.

DETECTIVE GRANT: All right. So me just understand [sic], just read that for me and look through it.

MR. BROOKS: Inform me of each offense I am charged with and the associate, associated -

DETECTIVE GRANT: Associated.

MR. BROOKS: Associated penalty and provide me with a written copy of the charges against me.

Now am I, (INAUDIBLE), so I don't know what -

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay. That's okay. Look here, I'll read it, how about if I read it for you and if you have a question you ask.

It says, "I have the right to be taken promptly before a judicial officer. A judicial officer will do each of the following." This is what the commissioner will do for you.

MR. BROOKS: Um hum.

DETECTIVE GRANT: "Inform me of each offense I am charged with and associated penalty." Okay. "Provide me with a written copy ofthe charges against me. Advise me of the right to an attorney or a public defender if I cannot afford an attorney. Decide whether there's probable cause to believe that I committed a crime. Determine if I receive a bail or be released on my own recognizance." Basically being released there and expected to show up later for court.

MR. BROOKS: Okay.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Set a trial date for the District Court or advise me whether I have the right to a preliminary hearing.

So basically this just says what a commissioner does.

MR. BROOKS: Okay.

DETECTIVE GRANT: Okay. And this says "I freely and voluntarily waive the right to be promptly presented before the judicial officer and agree to be interviewed by the police." This means instead of going right now we're gonna talk, all right, and then you're gonna go if that's what that one is. Okay.

MR. BROOKS: Okay. And that's, I'm, I'm not doing that one yet.

DETECTIVE GRANT: All this is saying that you understand that, that you can't be in two places at one time and as long as you're here you're not being promptly presented over there.

MR. BROOKS: Okay.

Detective Grant testified that appellant never expressed any confusion about his Miranda rights and never stated that he did not want to answer any questions. Detective Grant agreed that appellant was informed that he could stop answering questions if he so desired. Appellant also never told Detective Grant that he wanted to stop the interview or that he wanted a lawyer. Detective Grant did not yell at appellant, nor did she threaten him or make him any promises or inducements to get him to talk to her. Appellant neverexpressed any discomfort during the interview, and the interview lasted just under approximately two hours. Appellant was also offered food and drinks at the end of the interview.

On cross-examination, Detective Grant agreed that there was no language on the Miranda form presented to appellant for a person to indicate that "he didn't want to talk" with the police. She also agreed with defense counsel's question that she did not tell appellant "if you do not want to waive your rights do not sign the form[.]" Detective Grant confirmed that it was "routine" to read an individual the Miranda form. But, the detective also testified "I believe I explained it clearly and it's written and he said he understood that."

When asked why she did not immediately take appellant to the commissioner at 10:34 p.m., Detective Grant replied, "[b]ecause he was not necessarily gonna be charged. It depended on the outcome of the interview and the outcome of the search warrant on the vehicle." The police decided to charge appellant after clothing was recovered from the vehicle "that matched something important to the case . . . ." Detective Grant agreed that appellant was not free to leave and that he was being detained in connection with the investigation.

Detective Grant was also asked to confirm that appellant stated "what is going on," at some point during the interview. The detective agreed that appellant made that statement, but testified further:

His question about what was going on is

...