Enoch Jermaine Hill v. State

• Decision Date: 26 January 2011
• Docket Number: Sept. Term 2009.,No. 149,149
• Citation: 12 A.3d 1193,418 Md. 62
• Parties: Enoch Jermaine HILLv.STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

418 Md. 62
12 A.3d 1193

Enoch Jermaine HILL
v.
STATE of Maryland.

No. 149

Sept. Term 2009.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 26, 2011.

[12 A.3d 1195]

Juan P. Reyes, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioner.Brian S. Kleinbord, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, and BARBERA, JJ.BARBERA, J.

[418 Md. 66] Petitioner Enoch Jermaine Hill stands convicted of the crimes of sexual abuse of a minor, second degree sexual offense, and unnatural or perverted sexual practice. Those convictions were based, in part, on the admission into evidence of two statements he made to the police during their investigation of the crimes. Petitioner sought suppression of the statements before trial, claiming that both statements were obtained in violation of Maryland's common law rule that a statement by the accused that is the product of improper police inducement is involuntary and, thus, inadmissible.

Petitioner challenged the denial of the suppression motion on appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. That court, finding no merit in the claim, affirmed the convictions in an unreported opinion. We granted a writ of certiorari, Hill v. State, 411 Md. 740, 985 A.2d 538 (2009), to answer the following question:

Do statements made by an interrogating officer to a suspect implying a victim's inclination not to prosecute if the suspect were to apologize constitute an improper inducement under Maryland common law where the suspect relied on those statements in making admissions to the police?

For the reasons that follow, we hold that Petitioner's statements to the police were indeed the product of an improper inducement, entitling him to a new trial at which the statements may not be used against him.

I.

Because the legal question we decide involves the correctness of a ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, it is unnecessary to discuss in detail the evidence that was [418 Md. 67] developed at trial.¹ It is sufficient to note that the young victim of the incidents in question, whom we shall refer to simply as “Randy,” met Petitioner at the church where Petitioner, an ordained minister, was involved in the church's Youth Department. Over time, Randy and Petitioner grew close and, during the summer of 2004, Randy became Petitioner's godson. Randy's mother occasionally allowed Randy to spend weekends with Petitioner at his home in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

In April 2006, the Anne Arundel County Police Department began investigating Petitioner concerning allegations that he sexually abused Randy approximately a year and a half earlier, when Randy was eight or nine years old. In the course of that investigation, the police interviewed Petitioner

[12 A.3d 1196]

at the police station. At that time, Petitioner disclosed that he had engaged in sexual contact with Randy on a number of occasions and, at the suggestion of the interrogating officer, he drafted a hand-written note to Randy apologizing for the sexual abuse.

Petitioner was later arrested and charged in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County with the various sexual offenses we have mentioned. He filed a motion to suppress the oral and written statements that Detective McLaughlin obtained during the interview.

The Motion Hearing

Detective Patrick McLaughlin, a sixteen-year veteran of the police department with more than three years' experience in the child abuse unit, testified to the following at the hearing on the motion. Shortly after being assigned to investigate the case, he interviewed Randy, then twelve years old, at his home in Baltimore City. Following the interview, Detective McLaughlin suggested that Randy place a one-party consent [418 Md. 68] telephone call ² to Petitioner, to “ elicit some type of admission or acknowledgment that the abuse occurred.” Randy and his mother agreed to make the phone call. The relevant portions of the call between Randy and Petitioner are set forth below:

[Randy]: But you know I, I missed you and I wanted to call to say hi.

[Petitioner]: I miss you too. Oh my, God. I been thinking about you wondering what you doin and stuff.

[Randy]: But you know I been thinking a lot about what happened between us and ...

[Petitioner]: I know.

[Randy]: ... remember that?

[Petitioner]: Yeah.

[Randy]: And I kind of, it kind of made me uncomfortable.

[Petitioner]: Yeah.

[Randy]: After I thought about it (inaudible) it made me uncomfortable.

[Petitioner]: Yeah, well you know I, I think we're cool now ...

[Randy]: Yeah.

[Petitioner]: ... so.

[Randy]: But you know, when you touched me or the way I touched you, I don't, I don't want you, I don't want you to get in trouble but just I promise that it won't happen again.

[Petitioner]: Yeah, I just, you know, the Holy Ghost is a wonderful teacher and I love the Lord (inaudible), you know, God is just a wonderful God.

[Randy]: Um, can I ask you one thing?

[418 Md. 69] [Petitioner]: What?

[Randy]: Can you apologize to me?

[Petitioner]: Hmm?

[Randy]: Can you apologize to me?

[Petitioner]: I just want to, you know, I just want to go to heaven and forget what God is doing and continue to do, and I know that God is going to continue bless me and I just, you know, God is, we're in a revival right now

[12 A.3d 1197]

in Virginia, and God is, I can't begin to describe all the things that God is, I can't begin to describe it, you know.

[Randy]: Oh, um, yeah but ...

[Petitioner]: (Inaudible)

[Randy]: But can you apologize to me?

[Petitioner]: I, I, Randy I don't wanna go into all that right now. I just wanna let God do his work. God is, is just doing great things right now and ...

[Randy]: Can you just apologize to me?

[Petitioner]: I really want ... (inaudible)

[Randy]: Well, maybe not apologize but just to admit that that did happen.

[Petitioner]: I, I'm not going into the (inaudible) I just want God ...

[Randy]: Okay, if you don't, if you don't apologize I'm gonna have to tell my mother.

[Petitioner]: I'm not, I'm not going to, why are you, why are you going to this route?

[Randy]: I just want you to apologize to me.

[Petitioner]: (inaudible) What did you say when you first got on the phone?

[Randy]: I miss you and I wanted to call and say hi and I been thinking a lot about what happened between us and it made me uncomfortable.

[418 Md. 70] [Petitioner]: Yeah, I, you know.

[Randy]: But I, I, I don't want to you, I don't want to get you in trouble.

[Petitioner]: Alright, and I understand cause we uh, both have done ...

[Petitioner]: I, I never, we, we have been through all this. We have been through all this already and I, I just don't even want to, I want to go to heaven (inaudible).

[Randy]: I know but you haven't, I haven't forgiven you yet cause you haven't apologized to me.

[Petitioner]: I thought we had already been down this road, that happened a long time ago and I just thank God that we ...

[Randy]: But you never apologized.

[Petitioner]: Okay, yeah we've been down this road for everything that had happened but I do apologize.

[Randy]: So you apologize that you touched me in the wrong place.

[Petitioner]: I, I'm not.

[Randy]: I just wanna put, I just wanna put this behind us.

[Petitioner]: It is, it is behind us right now.

[Randy]: It is behind us, okay.

[Petitioner]: Yes, it is behind us, I guarantee (inaudible) God is (inaudible) and I love him ...

Four days after that telephone conversation, Detective McLaughlin went to Petitioner's

[12 A.3d 1198]

home and, when told that Petitioner was not home, left him a telephone voice message. When Petitioner returned the call later that morning, Detective McLaughlin notified him that “his name came up in an investigation” and “it wasn't that big of a deal.” Detective McLaughlin asked Petitioner to come to the police station for an interview. Petitioner agreed to take part in the interview.

[418 Md. 71] When Petitioner arrived at the police station he was greeted by Detective McLaughlin, who asked Petitioner to accompany him to the interview room. The interview room measured twelve feet long and six feet wide and contained three chairs and a table. Detective Tracy Morgan, who, like Detective McLaughlin, was dressed in business attire, assisted Detective McLaughlin in the interview. Both detectives secured their weapons in a lockbox outside of the interview room. The door to the interview room was closed but unlocked. Petitioner sat closest to the door, with the two detectives seated opposite him. The interview started at 11:30 a.m. and lasted “approximately for a half an hour.” Following the interview, Petitioner left the police station.

Detective McLaughlin began the questioning by asking Petitioner “if he knew why [Detective McLaughlin] had asked him to come to the office.” Petitioner replied that “he was surprised that he received a call, but had a suspicion as to why [the detective] called him.” Shortly thereafter, Detective McLaughlin advised Petitioner that the police had recorded the telephone call from Randy to Petitioner, during which Petitioner apologized to Randy for touching him inappropriately. Detective McLaughlin informed Petitioner that “Randy and his mother did not want to see him get into trouble, but they only wanted an apology.” He then questioned Petitioner about the frequency of the sexual encounters between Petitioner and the victim. Petitioner responded that he had “masturbated Randy” on six occasions. Detective McLaughlin then suggested that Petitioner write an apology note to Randy and provided Petitioner with writing materials. Petitioner presented Detective McLaughlin with the following letter:

Hi Randy:

I am very sorry for everything that happened between us, God knows! I wish this had never happened and it will never happen again. God is blessing both of us greatly and since we have forgiven each other, I know God has forgiven us to [sic].

...