Coates v. State

• Decision Date: 22 April 1942
• Docket Number: 31-39.
• Parties: COATES v. STATE (nine cases).
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

25 A.2d 676

180 Md. 502

COATES v. STATE (nine cases).

Nos. 31-39.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 22, 1942

Appeals from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne Judge.

Wilbur Coates was convicted under six indictments for robbery, one indictment for assault with intent to rob, and two indictments for burglary, and he appeals.

Judgments reversed, motion to strike out pleas granted, and new trials awarded.

William L. Marbury, Jr., of Baltimore, for appellant.

Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (William C. Walsh, Attorney General, and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., and Bernard G. Peter, Asst. State's Atty., both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BOND, C.J., and SLOAN, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, FORSYTHE, and MARBURY, JJ.

COLLINS Judge.

The appellant, Willbur Coates, a nineteen year old colored boy was charged in nine separate indictments in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City. Six of these indictments were for robbery, one for assault with intent to rob, and two were for burglary. The appellant pleaded guilty in two robbery cases in the case of assault with intent to rob, and in one burglary case, and testimony was taken before the Court in each of these cases. The others were tried before the Court. Sentences were imposed of ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary in each of the nine cases, to run consecutively making a total of ninety years. This sentence of ten years in each case is within the limit fixed by law. Flack's Code, Article 27, Sections 13, 34 and 557. On November 26, 1941, the indictments were all filed and two days later the arraignments and trials were held on the same day and disposed of in succession. The sentences were also entered on November 28, 1941. The appellant was not asked whether he wished counsel appointed and did not ask for such appointment. It is conceded that he could not have employed counsel at his own expense.

A preliminary question is whether the cases are before the Court on the appeals or motions. The prisoner, in his ignorance of the proper procedure, addressed to the Chief Judge of this Court at Annapolis a letter which made it sufficiently clear that he wished his cases reviewed on appeal, and he gave the letter to the warden of the Penitentiary, as disciplinary rules require, for mailing, within the time fixed by the rule of court for appeals. Delay in the hands of the warden, and in the mails, however, brought the letter to the Chief Judge after the lapse of that time, and it was then filed with the clerk of the Criminal Court in which the proceedings were had. The trial judge immediately appointed counsel to press the cases for the prisoner in this Court. In ordinary practice then, the cases would not be reviewable here. But the delay was a result of the lack of counsel which is complained of, and the objection to the proceedings is one which denies force to any inartificiality in the appeal. It goes, indeed, back to the arraignment. If counsel should have been appointed at all, he should have been appointed before the cases were called for trial. The prisoner did all that his ignorance and lack of advice permitted in forwarding his appeal in time, and the nature of his objection requires that it be accepted as of that time. Moreover, the motions to strike out the pleas of guilty, verdicts and sentences, made by the counsel appointed were filed within the terms, all of which were denied and appeals taken from those denials which bring the objections up for review. Margulies v. State, 153 Md. 204, 137 A. 896; Bosco v. State, 157 Md. 407, 146 A. 238.

All the trials were before the Court without a jury. A system of trying criminal cases before the Court, sitting as a jury, has grown up and has been frequently used in this state, and has been much commended elsewhere. Rose v. State, 177 Md. 577, 10 A.2d 617. It is, of course, dependent upon the choice of the accused. The manner in which it has been administered by the courts, and the fairness used in such cases have resulted in a very large proportion of persons charged with crime electing to be tried by the courts rather than by juries. In that way, much time and expense have been saved, and in general, the rights of the accused have been adequately protected.

As this prisoner's cases were called for trial, he faced a possible total imprisonment for life; and that is in effect the total of the sentences imposed. It has long been the practice in this State for the Court to provide counsel for defendants who face a possibility of life imprisonment, and in all criminal cases in which defendants are without counsel of their own securing, for the Court to see that they are given all their rights and tried fairly.

The charge was robbery in the first case tried in which there was a plea of not guilty. The complaining witness testified that someone whom she could not identify hit her on the head and knocked her down and she handed him her pocketbook and he kept on cracking her. After appellant was apprehended he was questioned by the Sergeant at the Police Station. The Sergeant was asked the following questions:

'Q. Did you threaten him in any way? A. No.

'Q. Did you make him any promises? A. No.

'Q. Did you offer him any induce ments? A. No.

'Q. What did he say, Sergeant?'

The witness then testified that Coat admitted taking a pocketbook from a young white girl at the time and place testified to by the prosecuting witness. The Sergeant was then asked whether the appellant signed a statement to that effect. The answer was, 'Yes, signed and witnessed.' This signed statement was not produced or offered in evidence. The appellant was then asked whether he desired to ask the Sergeant any questions to which he answered, 'No. sir'. He also stated that he did not desire to testify in the case. There was no other testimony and the verdict was guilty.

In the second case for robbery in which the appellant pleaded not guilty, three colored boys grabbed a white girl and snatched her purse and knitting bag. She was unable to identify any of her assailants. The Police Sergeant testified that he had a conversation with appellant about this case when he was asked the following questions: 'Did you threaten him in any way? A. No, sir. Q. What did he say, if anything, Coates?' The Sergeant then testified as to appellant's conversation to the effect that one of the other boys grabbed the pocketbook while he was standing alongside of him and that he got forty-seven cents of the money. He also said that the appellant and one of the other boys showed him where the pocketbook was dropped but it could not be found there, however, a card which the prosecuting witness identified as being in the pocketbook was found at that place. The appellant was asked if he desired to cross-examine the witness to which he replied, 'No'. He also stated that he did not want to testify in his own behalf. On that evidence he was found guilty.

In the third robbery case in which appellant pleaded not guilty the woman robbed testified that three small boys grabbed her, took her pocketbook, rolled her on the pavement, cut her mouth open and injured her knee very badly. She could not identify them. She identified the pocketbook. In this case the same Sergeant testified as to the statement made by the appellant. He was not asked any preliminary questions as to the manner in which the statement was obtained. He stated that the appellant and one of the other boys admitted attacking the lady at some place, they did not know where, and the pocketbook was found at the place where they said they dropped it. Appellant stated that he did not desire to cross-examine the witness or testify. On this testimony appellant was found guilty.

In the fourth robbery case in which a plea of not guilty was entered the prosecuting witness identified the appellant as the person who grabbed her purse while she was inserting the key in her front door. The same Sergeant testified as to the oral confessions made by the appellant. No preliminary questions were asked the Sergeant as to how this confession was obtained. The appellant stated that he did not desire to cross-examine the witness or testify. On this testimony the appellant was found guilty.

In the burglary case in which a plea of not guilty was entered by the appellant, the owner of the store testified that in the morning he found that his cash register had been rifled. A side door through which entrance had been gained had been cut and a pane of glass in the door had been broken. The same Sergeant testified that Coates admitted that he knew about this robbery and that he got two dollars out of it which was given him by one of the other boys as his part. No preliminary questions were asked the Sergeant as to the method of obtaining this statement. The appellant stated that he did not desire to cross-examine the witness or testify. On this evidence the appellant was found guilty.

Other cases were tried the same day in which other boys were charged with similar crimes, in some of which the appellant was charged, and in others he was not. All of the defendants were connected with one or more of the same sort of crimes and seemed to belong to the same gang. Attached to the record are statements made by Wilbur Coates but these statements were never offered in evidence.

The cases were quickly disposed of on very brief testimony. There was no cross-examination of the witnesses. In many cases identity of the prisoner was made by confessions which were admitted without the necessary preliminary questions and the confessions which were committed to writing were not introduced in evidence. The accused received very little aid from the Trial Court or from anyone else. The sentence of ninety years...