Demby v. State

• Decision Date: 23 July 1946
• Docket Number: 160.
• Parties: DEMBY v. STATE. PETERS v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

48 A.2d 586

187 Md. 7

DEMBY v. STATE.

PETERS v. STATE. ^[*]

No. 160.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 23, 1946

Reargument Denied September 3, 1946.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Conwell Smith, Chief Judge, and Edwin T. Dickerson and Herman M. Moser, Judges.

William Daniel Demby and Roy Nathan Peters were convicted of rape and they appeal.

Judgments affirmed.

S Winfield Cain, of Bel Air, and Thomas F. Cadwalader, of Baltimore, for appellants.

J Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Maynard, Deputy State's Atty., of Baltimore (Wm. Curran, Atty. Gen., J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., of Baltimore, and D. Paul McNabb, State's Atty., of Bel Air, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

MARBURY Chief Judge.

The appellants, both Negroes, were jointly indicted with two other Negroes, for rape alleged to have been committed on a private of the Womens Army Corps on the night of January 8, 1946. The crime was charged to have occurred in Harford County, near the United States Government Military Post, known as the Edgewood Arsenal, at which the prosecuting witness, a white woman, was stationed. The case was removed from the Circuit Court for Harford County to the Criminal Court of Baltimore City where it was tried before three judges of the Supreme Bench, commencing on February 12th. The trial was joint. The appellants and another defendant were found guilty of rape. The fourth defendant was found guilty of assault with intent to rape. Appellants were sentenced to death, and the other two traversers were sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal was taken by the latter. This appeal was taken under the provisions of Chapter 1068 of the Acts of 1945.

The questions involved are (1) whether the statements or confessions made by the appellants were admissible, and (2) whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the entire case in order to determine whether the evidence was insufficient to convict. We will consider them in order.

It is not necessary to relate all the facts, concerning the crime charged, in order to pass upon the questions involved. It is sufficient to say that some time between nine and ten o'clock at night, the prosecuting witness was standing with an army sergeant on a paved road in Harford County. The appellants and the two other traversers were in an automobile. They stopped as they were passing the prosecuting witness and her companion. There was some altercation. Two of the Negroes chased the sergeant away. The Negroes then got the prosecuting witness in the car, and took her to a place about two miles away in a wooded road, where the crime was committed. They were then driving her somewhere when a police car came along, and they abandoned her and their car and ran away. The two appellants returned to their homes the next morning, then they hid out in the woods for several days, and finally gave themselves up to the police on Sunday morning, January 13th. The other traversers had meanwhile been arrested, and appellants knew that they were being looked for.

The appellants testified, not in their defense, but to show the circumstances under which their statements were obtained. Peters said he was 22 years old. That he was brought to the station house of the State Police near Bel Air between nine and ten o'clock Sunday morning. He was given meals there and about one o'clock he was questioned. That he first made a statement which was not taken down. He was questioned by Detective Sergeant Cassidy, and there were a number of other officers present. He said Cassidy said to him: 'Peters, you are telling a damn lie. I want you to tell the truth; you are going to tell the truth and we have got ways of making you tell the truth, because if we put the electric instrument on you, you will have to tell the truth.' He said Cassidy explained the way that Robert Gilbert, one of the other traversers, previously arrested, had made his statement, and told Peters he had to make his the same way. Peters said he agreed to do this because he didn't want the man to put any instrument on him. So he made the statement which was taken down. Then he said Sergeant Cassidy called up Demby, the other appellant, and Demby made a statement just like Peters had made first. And he said Sergeant Cassidy said: 'Demby, you ain't telling nothing but a damn lie. You will look like a fool or an ass if you get up and say something different from the way the rest.' He said Cassidy told Demby that Theodore Peters, one of the other traversers, had agreed to the Robert Gilbert statement, and now Roy Peters had agreed to it. And he told Demby that he was going to have Roy Peters dictate a statement of Demby. So Roy Peters dictated the statement and Demby said 'all right.' The next day the statements were brought up, and both of the appellants signed them. Peters signed his first and then Demby signed his. Peters said the second statement is not the truth. The first statement was. And he testified as to the difference between the two statements. Without going into detail, the main difference was that he claimed in his first statement that the prosecuting witness agreed. He had the second statement read over to him before he signed it and he then had said it was all right. They treated him all right at the station, gave him meals, no threats and no promises were made. Demby's statement was read to him. The reason he signed was 'because I didn't want those fellows to put no instrument on me.'

Demby, the other appellant, testified that he was 22 years of age. His statement added the further particulars that he was married, had four children and was not living with his wife. He said he was brought back to the station or the barracks from Lakeside Inn, where he had called up and told the officer who he was. That on the way he started to tell the officer something in answer to a question, and the officer told him to shut up, he was telling a lie, to go downstairs and think it over and when he came back, to tell the truth. He didn't know which officer it was. That when he came back upstairs he started making a statement and the officer asking him wouldn't accept it. He said the officer told him he was telling a damn lie and he would look like a damn fool if he got up in Court and said one thing and made himself out an ass, and the rest of them would say another. The officer said that Robert Gilbert, another traverser, had made a statement and Peters, the other appellant, had been told about it, and he was going to get Roy to tell the witness just like Robert had stated, and the witness was to say the same thing. He said the officer told him something about an electric charge. He didn't know what it was, and he didn't know whether he had one or not. He signed the statement, and he also witnessed the statement of Roy Peters. Sergeant Cassidy was the man that told him not to be a fool, not to be an ass, and told him about the electric charge. He was fed once or twice before giving his statement. He said the statement was untrue in a number of particulars, but he did not say that the prosecuting witness consented.

Sergeant Cassidy of the Maryland State Police, who questioned all of the four traversers, said there were no threats, promises or offers of immunity of any kind or character whatsoever made to either Peters or Demby by him or by anyone else in his presence. That the statements about the electric instruments were untrue. That he told them nothing at all along that line. Nor did he tell them that they were telling a damn lie and they had to tell the truth. He said it was untrue that there were two statements made. He was there the whole time. There was one statement taken from Roy Peters and there was one statement taken from William Demby. They were the ones that were typewritten and signed the next day. There was no first statement from either of them taken and not used. The statements offered in evidence were the only ones given and were those given by Peters and Demby. His recollection was that Demby's was taken first and Peters was the second one. He thought they were signed the same day, but he was not absolutely certain about that. Several officers were present when they were signed. There were six witnesses to the statement, but he was not certain whether they were all present at the time of the signing. He was in Baltimore on Sunday when he heard the appellants had turned themselves in. He came from Baltimore to the barracks. The State Police does not use a lie detector. It has been used by them once, in 1932. The State Police of Pennsylvania brought one down on the Eastern Shore, and they used it there. The sheriff of Harford County testified that he was present when the statements were made by Demby and Roy Peters, and no threats or promises were made at any time when he was present. Trooper Everhart had the appellants under his control while at the barracks. No threats or promises were made to them while in his custody. Sergeant Trumpower, of the State Police, arrested the two appellants on January 13th, near the Lakeside Inn; put handcuffs on them, took them to the barracks, gave them breakfast, called Detective Sergeant Cassidy. While they were in his custody, no threats or offers of immunity or inducement were made to them. Lieutenant Durham was present during the questioning, and said neither he nor anyone else made any threats, promises, offers of immunity or any violence. He saw the appellants sign the statement. That he was present when all of the questions were asked. None of the conversation that was in the two confessions took place out of his hearing. He heard nobody say to Roy Peters that Robert Gilbert had told the story...