Ford v. State

• Decision Date: 26 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 843,843
• Parties: JAMAL FORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

JAMAL FORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 843

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

April 26, 2021

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CT-161358X

UNREPORTED

Reed, Shaw Geter, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Reed, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

On November 15, 2016, a grand jury assembled in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County indicted Jamal Ford ("Appellant") on charges of murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, motor vehicle theft, possession of a regulated firearm having been convicted of a crime of violence, and possession of a regulated firearm having been convicted of a disqualifying crime. On February 12, 2019, the court below (the Honorable Daneeka Varner Cotton, presiding), denied Appellant's motion to suppress his custodial statement to police, which Appellant contends was the result of an improper inducement under Maryland law. During the voir dire stage of his trial, Appellant objected to the trial court's refusal to propound his proposed questions to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Additionally, during jury deliberations, Appellant objected to the trial court's reliance on pattern jury instruction to address a question from the jury asking the legal effect of a signed Miranda waiver on an individual's subsequent confession.

On March 22, 2019, following a five-day jury trial (Judge Cotton, presiding), Appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree (premeditated and deliberated), use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, and motor vehicle theft. On June 28, 2019, Judge Cotton sentenced Mr. Ford to life for first degree murder, and concurrent sentences of 20 years for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, and five years for motor vehicle theft. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Appellant raises three issues which we have rephrased for clarity:¹

I. Did the trial court err in refusing to propound Appellant's proposed voir dire questions regarding the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and his Fifth Amendment right not to testify?

II. Did the trial court err in in declining to suppress Appellant's custodial statement to police upon the finding that Appellant's custodial statement was not the result of an improper inducement under Maryland common law?

III. Did the trial judge err in relying on pattern instructions which explained the effect of a defendant being advised of his rights, but not the effect of a defendant signing an advice of rights form, on the voluntariness of a subsequent confession?

Finding that the trial court erred in refusing to propound Appellant's proposed voir dire questions, we vacate Appellant's conviction and remand for further proceedings consistentwith this opinion. We also address the remaining issues to provide guidance for the remanded proceedings below.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Investigation

Cleve Monnity ("Decedent") was murdered on July 30, 2016. Decedent died from multiple gunshots to his right back, right chest, and back side of his right arm. That night, around 10:41 pm, a passerby discovered Decedent's body lying on a secluded stretch of road in the middle of Everest Drive in Bowie, Maryland. Upon arriving at the scene, Police recovered Decedent's cell phone among other personal effects. The following day, police recovered Decedent's vehicle parked in a residential neighborhood approximately a mile away from the scene. The vehicle had two bullet defects in the driver's window and a small defect on the inside of the driver's door.

During the investigation into Decedent's murder, police examined Decedent's phone and observed the most recent call came from a phone number belonging to Mr. Jamal Ford ("Appellant"). On the morning of July 31, 2016, Detective Ebaugh, who was then leading the investigation for the Prince George's County Police Department's Homicide Division, called Appellant's phone number and briefly spoke with Appellant. Using Appellant's phone number, Detective Ebaugh obtained Appellant's cell-site location information from his wireless carrier. Additionally, Detective Ebaugh secured GPS location data from Appellant's ankle bracelet - which Appellant was wearing on July 30, 2016 as a condition of his probation for an unrelated offense.

Following months of investigation, police secured a search warrant² for Appellant's home in Washington D.C., which included an arrest warrant for Appellant. October 3, 2016, police executed the search warrant and found Appellant in his home, along with his girlfriend and two children. Pursuant to the search of the residence, police recovered, among other effects, a .380 caliber semi-automatic pistol from a fake dictionary lockbox under Appellant's bed. Police arrested Appellant for the murder of Decedent and transported Appellant to the Metropolitan Police Department for interrogation. Additionally, police brought in Appellant's girlfriend for questioning after finding a safe place for the children to stay in the interim.

The Interrogation

After transporting Appellant to the Metropolitan Police Department for interrogation, Detective Ebaugh initiated interrogation of Appellant. Detective Ebaugh began the interrogation by stating: "I . . . want to answer some of [Appellant's] questions . . . but before we do that, we need to go through some formalities." Next, Detective Ebaugh confirmed that the children taken from Appellant's home were his children, and assured Appellant that they were safely being cared for by a neighbor while the police questioned Appellant's girlfriend. The following exchange ensued:

[Appellant]: Why did y'all talk to her, she has nothing to do...She doesn't know what I have [in my home]. The vest you found, all that. What else did you find?

[Detective]: I'd like to tell you what we found but we have to get through the advice of rights form...I have to read you your Miranda rights.

[Appellant]: I know my rights, let's get this over with.

Detective Ebaugh proceeded to read Appellant his advice of rights form and received Appellant's acknowledgement of each through initialing, and a final signature. Detective Ebaugh then explained that Appellant was arrested for the suspected murder of Decedent. Thereafter, Appellant attempted to elicit information about the evidence against him from Detective Ebaugh:

[Appellant]: What are the facts, what have y'all found so far?

[Detective]: Well for one you are wearing [the ankle monitor] right now, that's a big one.

[Appellant]: I know. That's neither here nor there. I'm listening.

[Detective]: And we got cell phones, we got Facebook instant messenger. . . We're taking [your girlfriend] back to the station.

[Appellant]: Why?

[Detective]: We're going to talk to her about some things that were said back and forth.

[Appellant]: She has nothing to do with nothing.

[Detective]: Ok.

[Appellant]: If that's the case I will take responsibility. If that's the . . . tree you want to bark up. Leave her out of it.

[Detective]: I'll respect that. I'll do that. You need to go ahead and explain to me why I shouldn't talk to her.

...

[Appellant]: Because this . . . got nothing to do with her. Like I said, I know what you're here for.

[Detective]: So what happened?

[Appellant]: You just put 2 and 2 together sir. So what did you find in my house?

[Detective]: We did find the murder weapon.

[Appellant]: I know you did.

[Detective]: Was that the weapon used?

[Appellant]: Mmhmm (while nodding head)

[Detective]: Okay well thank you for being honest.

[Appellant]: You got my girl. It's because you have my girl. If you didn't have my girl I wouldn't say this [expletive]. But you got my girl and my [expletive] kids. All that taking her to the station for what? What station is she at?

Detective Ebaugh proceeded to explain that jurisdictional rule which required the police to take Appellant to the Metropolitan Police Station rather than the interrogating officer's police station where Appellant's girlfriend was being held. Thereafter the following exchange ensued:

[Detective]: So unfortunately, I can't take you there. So if you're going to work with me, and I appreciate you being honest about the weapon. I'll shoot my officer a text right now and tell him to take her back.

[Appellant]: Yes please.

...

[Appellant]: And if it's possible, do you think I could talk with her?

[Detective]: At some point, yes.

[Appellant]: Because the way this is looking it doesn't look like I'm getting up out of here.

[Detective]: So what happened? What lead to this? What led [sic] to the murder?

Subsequently, Appellant proceeded to confess to - and explain the machinations behind - the murder of Decedent.

Pre-trial, Appellant sought to suppress his custodial statement to police, arguing that it was the result of an improper inducement under Maryland common law. The court began by providing the following rule applicable to its decision:

The Court must consider the Defendant's motion to suppress [a] statement relative to voluntariness as [he] allege[s] the Defendant was improperly induced to confess. The Defense argues that the police improperly induced the Defendant to confess with an implied promise not to involve [Appellant's girlfriend], the mother of the Defendant's two children. The State has the burden of showing by preponderance of the evidence the Defendant's confession and/or inculpatory statement was not made in reliance on a promise or inducement by the police.

Under Maryland law, if an accused is told or it's implied that making a statement will be to his advantage and that he'll be given help, some special

...