Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,102 |
| Citation | 232 A.2d 535,1 Md.App. 581 |
| Parties | Nimrod DAVIS, Jr. and Ronald Peterson v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Milton B. Allen, Baltimore, for appellant, Davis, Harry A. Cole, Baltimore, on the brief.
Samuel S. Field, III, Baltimore, for appellant, Peterson, Richard K. Jacobsen, Baltimore, on the brief.
Fred Oken, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, for appellee, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, A. Samuel Peregoff, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and WILLIAM W. TRAVERS, Special Judge.
The Appellants, Nimrod Davis, Jr. and Ronald Peterson, along with a third co-defendant, Willie C. Robinson, who is not involved in this appeal, were convicted of robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and each was sentenced by Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast to serve not more than five years in the Maryland Correctional Institution.
Adelaide Dickens, a 54 year old domestic worker, testified that shortly after midnight on June 20, 1965, as she was leaving a restaurant, two youths attacked her, dragged her into an alley, slammed her against a wall and finally knocked her down. They then took her pocket book containing eighty-five dollars in cash. She was unable to identify her assailants.
Davis was arrested on June 22, 1965, as a result of information given to the police by two juveniles apprehended in a stolen car. He signed a statement admitting his participation in the robbery several hours after his interrogation by the police officers began. Peterson was arrested on June 23, 1965, after Davis had involved him in the robbery. He signed an inculpatory statement on June 25, 1965.
In this appeal, Davis contends that the lower court erred in refusing to grant his motion to sequester his co-defendants, Peterson and Robinson. Maryland Rule 775 provides that '(t)he accused shall be present * * * at every stage of the trial * * * except as provided in this Rule.' Since none of the exceptions provided for in the Rule were applicable, the Court properly refused to sequester Davis' co-defendants. Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights compels the same result.
Peterson contends that the lower court erred in refusing his motion for a severance. The granting of a severance is within the sound discretion of the lower court and its action will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing that the discretion was abused. Day v. State, 196 Md. 384, 76 A.2d 729; Taylor v. State, 187 Md. 306, 49 A.2d 787; Maryland Rule 735.
In Day, supra, the Court found that the defenses of the co-defendants, there involved, were hostile and damaging to each other and, accordingly held that a severance should have been granted. These elements are not present in this case since neither Appellant took the stand nor presented any evidence at the conclusion of the State's case.
We have carefully considered Peterson's arguments and we have reviewed the record. We find no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in denying a severance.
Both Appellants contend that the lower court erred in admitting their respective inculpatory statements into evidence. Davis took the stand solely for the purpose of contesting the voluntariness of a written statement which the police testified was signed by him on June 22, 1965, without the use of threats, promises or inducements. Davis admitted signing a statement but asserted that he never read it and he thought it was signed on June 24, 1965; that prior to signing it he had been threatened by the interrogating officers with a sentence of forty to fifty years and that he only signed the statement after one of the officers promised him two years' probation. Davis' co-defendants took the stand on his behalf and testified that they heard the police promise Davis probation if he would cooperate. The foregoing testimony was specifically denied by the police officers called in rebuttal.
Peterson gave an oral inculpatory statement. According to the police he was arrested on June 23, 1965, and early in the morning of June 25, sent a message from his cell that he desired to make a statement because 'everybody else is ratting out, I might as well tell you my story too.' After the police had testified that the statement was given voluntarily without force, promises or threats, Peterson took the stand solely to deny the voluntariness of the statement. He testified that he was placed in a bug infested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dempsey v. State, 128
...that appellant was prejudiced thereby. A quite recent statement of the general rule will be found in Davis and Peterson v. State, 1 Md.App. 581, 232 A.2d 535 (1967), cert. den. by this Court 17 November 'Prior to admitting the statements, testimony as to their voluntariness was first given ......
-
Smith v. State
...of its admissibility must be placed before the trier of fact as with the question of the voluntariness of a confession. Davis v. State, 1 Md.App. 581, 232 A.2d 535. We noted the question in Smith v. State, Md.App., 249 A.2d 732, filed February 4, 1969, note 6, but had no need to resolve it.......
-
Robinson v. State
...that appellant was prejudiced thereby. A quite recent statement of the general rule will be found in Davis and Peterson v. State, 1 Md.App. 581, 232 A.2d 535 (1967), cert. den. by this Court 17 November 'Prior to admitting the statements, testimony as to their voluntariness was first given ......
-
Plumley v. State
...discretion of the trial judge and we cannot say that in this instance the restriction imposed was unsound or prejudicial. Davis v. State, 1 Md.App. 581, 232 A.2d 535. Further, the appellant failed to call the witness as his own and thus is precluded from presenting the issue. Holt v. State,......