Duckett v. State

• Decision Date: 05 April 1968
• Docket Number: Nos. 31,182,s. 31
• Parties: Raymond James DUCKETT, John W. Smith, and James Isiah Lee, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 563

3 Md.App. 563

240 A.2d 332

Raymond James DUCKETT, John W. Smith, and James Isiah Lee, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.

Nos. 31, 182.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

April 5, 1968.

Henry F. Leonnig, Upper Marlboro, Glenn B. Harten, College Park, Kenneth E. Pruden, Upper Marlboro, for appellants, as to No. 31.

Joseph E. O'Brien, Jr., Rockville, for appellant, as to No. 182.

Alred J. O'Ferrall, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., with

whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., and Benjamin Wolman, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Prince George's County, on brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

At a joint trial concluded on November 23, 1966, the three appellants were found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of the kidnapping and rape of Betty Jean Robinson. Appellants Duckett and Lee were each sentenced to terms of twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary for rape and three years concurrently for kidnapping. Appellant Smith was sentenced to eighteen years in the Maryland Penitentiary for rape and three years concurrently for kidnapping. On these appeals from those judgments, the appellants contend, both individually and collectively (a) that their arrests were illegal and all evidence thereafter secured from them by the police, both tangible and intangible, should not have been received in evidence, and (b) that statements made by them to the police following their arrests were inadmissible as having been secured in violation of the principles enunciated in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and (c) that their post-arrest identification by the victim was conducted under conditions violative of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and evidence of their silence while in police custody in the face of the victim's accusations was also improperly admitted in evidence against them, and (d) that the lower court erred in failing to grant their respective motions for a mistrial. The appellant Smith raises the further contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict him as a principal under the kidnapping charge.

There was evidence adduced at the trial tending to establish that on the evening of Saturday, September 24, 1966, Mr. and Mrs. Evon Robinson were returning to their home in Washington, D. C. from Waldorf, Maryland where they had been visting Mrs. Robinson's aunt, Inez McConnell. As they were unable to get a bus to the District, the Robinsons stopped at the State Police Barracks at Waldorf to inquire about taxi service. Since this mode of transportation proved too expensive, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson returned on foot to Route 301 were they hoped to flag down a bus to the District line. At this time a car containing six male youths, including the three appellants, stopped, and the occupants agreed to transport the Robinsons to the District line. The Robinsons entered the car which proceeded up Route 301 for a time before turning off on a side road. The youths explained to Mr. and Mrs. Robinson that they were going to stop at a house party and that they would later transport them to their destination. The Robinsons accompanied the six youths to the party at the home of Mrs. Harriett Swann where they remained for approximately an hour. Upon their departure they got into the same car with the same six youths and an additional unidentified young man. They proceeded a short distance when the driver stopped and announced that the car had a flat tire. All of the occupants, except the driver and Mrs. Robinson, got out of the car to fix the tire. The driver then drove off with Mrs. Robinson, immediately after which the appellant Lee fired several shots at Mr. Robinson. The six youths, including the three appellants, then ran after and re-entered the car. Restraining Mrs. Robinson, they drove off, stopping again at a fileld where they threw her out on the grass, beat her about the face, and held her down while each had sexual relations with her. The youths then departed, leaving Mrs. Robinson in the field. She subsequently made her way to a church where she spent the remainder of the night on the steps, being discovered in the morning by a caretaker, who took her to her aunt's home in Waldorf.

After the seven youths had driven off with his wife, Mr. Robinson located a house and called the Maryland State Police at the Marlboro outpost. Trooper David Miller, responding to the call, met Mr. Robinson at approximately 3:30 a. m. on the morning of September 25. Mr. Robinson related the story of his wife's abduction to Trooper Miller, informing him that the car in which she was taken was an old model Chevrolet with damage to the left rear fender. An hour-long search of the area revealed nothing, and they returned to Marlboro. The search was resumed at 6:00 a. m., during the course of which Mr. Robinson identified the Swann residence. Trooper Miller spoke with Mrs. Swann who told him that she had had a party the night before, that she recognized Mr. Robinson as having been there, and that she thought that one of the Duckett boys, as well as a boy named Isiah, were involved in the crime. Trooper Miller then returned to Marlboro with Mr. Robinson and reported the results of his investigation to Corporal Don Edward Ansell. After Mr. Robinson told Corporal Ansell about the crime, and provided him with descriptions of the abductors, he was shown several photographs and picked out those of appellants Duckett and Lee as two of the participants in the crime. Corporal Ansell then obtained warrants for the arrests of appellants Duckett and Lee. Later that morning, at approximately 11:00 a. m., Mrs. Robinson was brought to police headquarters where she related the story of her abduction and rape to Trooper Ansell, giving him descriptions of her assailants at that time.

At approximately 11:30 a. m. on September 25, Corporal Ansell, together with Trooper First Class Fisher, located the appellant Duckett driving a 1955 Chevrolet with damage to the left rear fender. The policemen stopped the car and told Duckett that he was under arrest. Duckett got out of his car and stood between it and the police cruiser. In Corporal Ansell's presence, Trooper Fisher advised Duckett:

'that anything he said could be used against him, he advised him that he had a right to remain quiet, that he had a right to contact his own attorney, if he couldn't afford an attorney the court would appoint him an attorney.'

The officer asked Duckett 'if he wanted a lawyer,' to which Duckett replied 'no.' After the officers had searched Duckett's car, and discovered a blue skirt and a revolver, they asked Duckett 'where the woman was from last night,' to which question he replied that he 'didn't know anything about a woman.' Ansell then asked him to account for his whereabouts during the early morning hours of September 25. Duckett stated that he had been with his wife, but then changed his story and told the officers that he was with his girlfriend and had spent the entire night with her. In response to further questioning, he stated that he had been shooting dice at about approximately 10:30 or 11:00 p. m. on the night of September 24 and that the car he was driving was owned by a friend, Richard Savoy.

Appellant Lee was arrested at 12:15 p. m. on the same day by Corporal Ansell and Trooper Fisher as he was emerging from a tavern. As Lee was standing outside of the police car, Corporal Ansell advised him that:

'Anything he said could be used against him, he had a right to remain silent, he had a right to contact an attorney, he had a right to a court-appointed attorney if he could not afford his own attorney.'

When asked 'if he desired an attorney's appellant Lee replied 'no.' After Lee had been placed in the police cruiser, Ansell asked him 'about the kidnapping of Betty Jean Robinson.' Lee responded, stating that 'he didn't know what we were talking about, that he was trying to keep out of trouble and we kept picking him up and he didn't do anything wrong, said he never saw a man or woman the night before.'

On the afternoon of September 25, after the arrests of appellants Duckett and Lee, Corporal Ansell visited the residence of Mrs. Swann who told him that two of the boys who were with Duckett and Lee were from Louisiana and were working on the Downing farm in Naylor. Corporal Ansell proceeded to the farm and was told that several boys from Louisiana did work there, including appellant Smith. Smith was not at the farm then, but Corporal Ansell learned from a farm employee that Smith and another boy had been out the night before and that when they came in 'Smith had a whole bunch of stuff over the front part of his pants by the fly and they were talking about how they had taken some woman away from her old man and taken her down and raped her.' Smith's pants were then shown to Corporal Ansell, who thereupon obtained a warrant for Smith's arrest. Smith was arrested later that night at approximately 10:00 p. m., while at a park and in the company of four colored males, including Willie Griggs, another suspect. Prior to being placed in a police cruiser, appellant Smith and Griggs were advised by Corporal Ansell that:

'I told them anything they said could be used against them, that they had a right to remain silent, that they had a right to contact an attorney of their own choosing that they had a right to a court-appointed attorney if they couldn't afford one of their own.'

In response to Ansell's question as to whether they 'wanted an attorney,' appellant Smith replied 'no.' Appellant Smith and Griggs were then placed in a police car and taken to police headquarters where Smith, without any further warnings being given to him, was questioned about the crimes and acknowledged his familiarity with them, stating that he was willing to discuss the crimes with...