Bruno v. State

• Decision Date: 01 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 143,143
• Citation: 632 A.2d 1192,332 Md. 673
• Parties: Michael Anthony BRUNO v. STATE of Maryland. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 673

332 Md. 673

632 A.2d 1192

Michael Anthony BRUNO v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 143, Sept. Term, 1992.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 17, 1993.

James Wyda, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, both on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.

David P. Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, ROBERT M. BELL, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge of the Court of Appeals (retired), Specially Assigned.

CHASANOW, Judge.

Petitioner, Michael Anthony Bruno, was tried in the Circuit Court for Harford County on stipulated evidence and was convicted of first degree rape by the trial judge (Whitfill, J.). Bruno appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of incriminating statements that he made to three different individuals. At a pretrial motions hearing, the trial judge denied a motion to suppress these statements, and they were included as part of the stipulated evidence. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the statements to two of the three individuals were inadmissible, however, it found their admission was harmless in light of the other overwhelming evidence of guilt. We granted certiorari to consider if improperly admitted statements could be deemed harmless error when a defendant, in order to preserve for appeal the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, has pled not guilty and agreed to a trial by stipulated evidence.

I.

Bruno was charged with first degree rape and related offenses. He pled not guilty and initially elected to be tried by a jury. Prior to trial, Bruno sought to suppress several incriminating statements on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The challenged evidence included (1) "the Smith statement"--Bruno's admission to Norman Smith, a fellow inmate in the Harford County Detention Center, that Bruno had forcibly raped the victim after a night of partying; (2) "the Mack statement"--statements made by Bruno to another inmate, Curtis Mack, expressing his desire to have the rape victim killed; and (3) "the Walters statement"--Bruno's conversation with Corporal Frank Walters, an undercover officer with the Maryland State Police, in which Bruno repeated his desire to have the rape victim killed and agreed to a price for the murder. The trial court denied Bruno's motion to suppress all three of these statements.

After the denial of his suppression motion, Bruno reaffirmed his not guilty plea; however, he decided to waive his right to a jury trial and agreed to a trial by stipulated evidence. ^{1 1} Bruno's actions were prompted by his desire to preserve the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and to accept the State's offer that, if he proceeded by stipulated evidence, it would place all charges other than first degree rape on the stet docket. Bruno further benefited from the State's promise to recommend a sentence of life with all but twenty (20) years suspended, to run concurrently with any sentence Bruno received in a companion case charging him with solicitation to murder. ² After the judge extensively questioned Bruno and determined that he freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and elected to stipulate to the State's evidence, the State proffered a summary of their witnesses' testimony. ³ The following dialogue occurred:

"[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, in the early morning hours of March 29, 1990, a woman by the name of Kimberly W., ⁴ approximate age 24, was at a bar called Lucky Spirits in Baltimore City. She met up with a group of five men, among them Michael Bruno, the Defendant. Mr. Bruno was on an, I guess bar hopping would be a good term, with the other men.

As the evening progressed, Miss W. became part of the group, and shortly before closing, Miss W. left the bar in Mr. Bruno's limousine with the five men, including Mr. Bruno. They went on a rather circuitous route, through Baltimore County, ultimately ending up in Harford County.

At some point, two of the men, Chuckie and Ricky Frazier, left the group, leaving Miss W. with Michael Bruno, Robert Ambrose, and Andre Whims.

There came a time when Mr. Bruno and/or his companions demanded sexual relations with Miss W. The limousine was parked at the time. Miss W. refused these advances.

At that point, Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Whims held down Miss W. and Mr. Bruno started to remove her clothing forcefully. Miss W. resisted. She was kicking and pushing at them, and telling them to stop.

Mr. Bruno obtained an electronic stun gun device that delivers shocks of relatively high voltage of electricity, and shocked her with it on her bare skin numerous times.

While she was being held down by his companions and after the weapon, which she perceived to be a dangerous and deadly weapon, was used upon her, she submitted, and Mr. Bruno engaged in forceful vaginal intercourse with her forcefully, and against her consent, while the two companions were assisting in subduing her.

Other sexual acts took place, all against her will, and without her consent. There were several acts of sexual intercourse, acts of sodomy, and battery.

Ultimately, when the sexual events were over, Mr. Bruno and his companions began to discuss the possibility of having breakfast. Miss W., realizing this would involve going to a place where there were other people, and a place of safety, agreed to do so. They came to Denny's in the Fallston area of Harford County. There, she was let out of the vehicle and approached a waitress.

The police were summoned. Mr. Bruno and his companions were all arrested. While in jail, in the Harford County Detention Center, under this charge, pending trial, Mr. Bruno admitted to a fellow inmate by the name of Norman Smith, that he had raped Miss W.

He also had a conversation with a fellow inmate by the name of Curtis Mack concerning killing Miss W., the State's witness. Mr. Mack made arrangements to have Mr. Bruno contact Corporal Frank Walters of the Maryland State Police, who was identified to Mr. Bruno as Tony, a professional hit man who would take care of Miss W. for him.

Mr. Bruno contacted Corporal Walters and engaged in a conversation with him, which has been marked as a State's exhibit. We would ask it be included as an exhibit, the transcript of the conversation, included as an exhibit in the Statement of Facts.

THE COURT: Be accepted.

[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Thank you. In this conversation Mr. Bruno solicited the murder of Miss W. for a sum of money which was agreed for approximately $1,500.

Just to clear it up, I am not sure I precisely phrased it regarding Mr. Mack. At some point Mr. Bruno and Mr. Mack had a conversation regarding Mr. Bruno's desire to kill Kimberly W. Mr. Mack gave the name, phone number, and the name "Tony," which was Frank Walters of the Maryland State Police, which brings about the transcript we have asked to be included.

The terminating point of the transport of Miss W. in the course of the rape was, of course, Harford County, which, of course, gives us jurisdiction. That would be the Statement of Facts.

* * * * * *

[DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, in light of the agreement, if that's--if the State's witnesses were to testify in this case, that would be their testimony. Given that, we have no further additions, corrections, deletions, or modifications.

THE COURT: Argument as to whether or not the Statement of Facts is sufficient to constitute the offenses charged?

[DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: We will submit.

THE COURT: Based on the Statement of Facts, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty the Defendant is guilty of First Degree Rape of Kimberly W., and that he had vaginal intercourse with her against her will by use of force, with assistance of others, and the use of a weapon.

So, for that reason, a finding of guilty as to Count 1, First Degree Rape, will be entered."

There was a further stipulation to incorporate relevant testimony from the motions hearing regarding Bruno's statements to Smith, Mack, and Walters. Bruno offered no evidence and called no witnesses to controvert the stipulated testimony, and expressly acknowledged that the credibility of the State's witnesses was not at issue.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals addressed Bruno's Sixth Amendment, right-to-counsel challenge to the statements to Smith, Mack, and Walters. The intermediate appellate court determined that the Smith statement, in which Bruno admitted the rape, was properly received because there was "nothing in [the] record to indicate that Smith was in any way a State agent when that statement was made or that he had encouraged or solicited the statement, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the State." Bruno v. State, 93 Md.App. 501, 515, 613 A.2d 440, 447 (1992). As for the statements to Mack and Walters concerning Bruno's desire to kill the rape victim, however, the intermediate appellate court concluded that these were obtained in violation of Bruno's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and thereby inadmissible based on its interpretation of Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), and related cases. Despite its conclusion that the Mack and Walters statements were erroneously admitted in Bruno's rape trial, the court found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the stipulated evidence, the Court of Special Appeals believed that the erroneously admitted evidence "could not possibly have influenced the [trial] court's verdict in any way." Bruno, 93 Md.App. at 517, 613 A.2d at 448. Therefore, the court affirmed Bruno's rape conviction.

Before this Court, Bruno contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred by finding the improperly admitted statements harmless error. First, Bruno asks us to analogize a not guilty plea, together with a stipulation as to the State's...