Gupta v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 36, Sept. Term, 2016,36, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Citation | 156 A.3d 785,452 Md. 103 |
| Parties | Rahul GUPTA v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
452 Md. 103
156 A.3d 785
Rahul GUPTA
v.
STATE of Maryland
No. 36, Sept. Term, 2016
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Argued: December 5, 2016
Filed: March 24, 2017
Booth M. Ripke (Larry A. Nathans, Nathans & Biddle, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioner.
Robert K. Taylor, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Hotten, Getty, Lawrence F. Rodowsky (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Getty, J.
In this case we are asked to determine whether a trial judge's ex parte communication with a juror violated Maryland Rule 4–326(d)(2) and, if so, whether such violation was harmless. In addition, we must determine whether a suspect can invoke his right to counsel under Miranda1 by demanding to see a lawyer while in a holding cell before interrogation begins.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that although the trial judge did violate Rule 4–326(d)(2), that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, we hold that the Petitioner did not invoke his Miranda right to counsel by demanding to see a lawyer from his holding cell before being interrogated, and therefore the circuit court did not err in denying the Petitioner's motion to suppress the statements he made to detectives during his interrogation. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
BACKGROUND
A. The Murder
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Petitioner Rahul Gupta and his girlfriend, Taylor
Gould, went out to dinner in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. to celebrate Mr. Gupta's twenty-fourth birthday. After dinner, the couple walked to a nearby bar, where they met up with two of Mr. Gupta's friends—Mark Waugh and Josh White. Approximately an hour later, the group moved to another nearby bar, at which point they split up into pairs. Mr. Gupta went outside with Mr. White, while Mr. Waugh remained inside the bar with Ms. Gould. Mr. Gupta testified that he went outside with
Mr. White to smoke marijuana. He also testified that, during this time, Mr. White told Mr. Gupta that he thought Ms. Gould was flirting with him. Meanwhile, inside the bar, Ms. Gould confided in Mr. Waugh that she felt like Mr. White was hitting on her, and it was making her uncomfortable.
Later, after the group had moved to a third bar, Mr. Waugh confronted Mr. Gupta about the situation between Ms. Gould and Mr. White, telling Mr. Gupta that Mr. White was "trying to make a move on" Ms. Gould. Mr. White denied the accusation, and decided at that time to return to his apartment in the Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Mr. Gupta and Ms. Gould also decided to call it a night, and the couple took a taxi back to the apartment they shared in Silver Spring, Maryland, accompanied by Mr. Waugh.
Surveillance cameras in the Silver Spring apartment building show that the trio arrived at 1:50 a.m. on Sunday, October 13, 2013. Once inside the apartment, they took shots of vodka, Mr. Gupta smoked more marijuana, and all three sat on the couch and began playing video games. At some point, there was another discussion about whether there had been any flirting between Ms. Gould and Mr. White earlier in the night. Ms. Gould testified that Mr. Waugh helped her confront Mr. Gupta about the perceived flirting by Mr. White, while Mr. Gupta testified that Mr. Waugh did not believe Ms. Gould's accusation that Mr. White was "hitting on her."
Both Mr. Gupta and Ms. Gould claimed that they could not clearly remember the events following this discussion, as both had been drinking heavily throughout the night. But at 3:25 a.m., Ms. Gould called 911 at Mr. Gupta's direction. She told the operator that "my friend is ... here and I need emergency right now," that "he's not breathing," and that "there's blood everywhere." When the operator asked Ms. Gould what had happened, she relayed the question to Mr. Gupta, and then responded to the operator, "I don't know what happened."
Police officers arrived at the apartment at 3:36 a.m., and encountered a "very intoxicated" Ms. Gould at the front door.
She repeated to the officer that she did not know what happened, and they placed her in handcuffs and detained her outside the apartment. The officers who entered the apartment found Mr. Gupta groaning and covered in blood, lying on the floor just to the left of Mr. Waugh's body. When the officers asked Mr. Gupta what happened, he responded, "They were cheating. My girlfriend was cheating on me. My buddy and my girlfriend were cheating. I walked in on my buddy and my girlfriend cheating. I killed my buddy." Medical technicians on the scene confirmed that Mr. Waugh was dead. The medical examiner testified that Mr. Waugh had six stab wounds and five "cutting injuries." Police recovered an eight-inch kitchen knife, identified as the murder weapon, from under Mr. Waugh's leg.
B. The Interrogation and Suppression Hearing
Police officers transported Mr. Gupta and Ms. Gould, separately, to the Major Crimes Division of the Montgomery County
Police Department. Once there, they placed Mr. Gupta in a holding cell to await interrogation. In the holding cell, at 5:05 a.m., Mr. Gupta screamed at Officer Andrew Richardson, who was stationed nearby to keep an eye on Mr. Gupta, that he was "going to sue the shit out of all of you." Mr. Gupta also pounded on the door of his cell, and screamed—two to three times—"I want a lawyer." Approximately ten to thirty minutes later, according to Officer Richardson's estimate, Detectives Paula Hamill and Kathy Fumagalli arrived to speak with Mr. Gupta and Ms. Gould. Officer Richardson relayed to the detectives Mr. Gupta's request for a lawyer. At the suppression hearing, Detective Fumagalli testified that she remembered receiving this information, while Detective Hamill testified that she did not remember learning that Mr. Gupta had requested a lawyer.
The detectives spoke to Ms. Gould first. Then, at 8:10 a.m., they moved Mr. Gupta from the holding cell into an interview room and began questioning him. After answering some preliminary questions about his background and current state of mind, Detective Hamill read Mr. Gupta his Miranda rights
and asked him whether he understood those rights. Mr. Gupta responded, "Yes." After about eight seconds of silence, Mr. Gupta asked, "When do I get to talk ...," before Detective Hamill interrupted him by stating, "Okay, do you ... here's the deal. We're just trying to find out what the heck happened. You know what I mean?" Mr. Gupta cooperated with the detectives and answered their questions throughout the fifty-five-minute interrogation, and did not request to see or speak to a lawyer until approximately one hour after the interrogation had ended. At trial, the State questioned Mr. Gupta on cross-examination regarding some of the statements he had made during the interrogation. The statements themselves were not admitted into evidence.
The State charged Mr. Gupta with first- and second-degree murder in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Prior to trial, Mr. Gupta filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to police officers on the morning of his arrest. Specifically, and relevant to this appeal, Mr. Gupta argued that the statements he made while being interrogated by Detectives Hamill and Fumagalli should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to have counsel present during questioning under Miranda . Mr. Gupta asserted that his demands to see a lawyer while he was in the holding cell awaiting interrogation were made "in the context of custodial interrogation" or when interrogation was "imminent." Upon learning of these requests, the detectives were required to cease questioning until Mr. Gupta had a chance to speak with a lawyer. Therefore, Mr. Gupta concluded, any statements he made to the detectives during the interrogation must be suppressed as being obtained in violation of his Miranda right to counsel.
Following a suppression hearing on July 30 and 31, 2014, the circuit court denied Mr. Gupta's motion to suppress. The court found that Mr. Gupta had requested a lawyer "two to four times ... while in custody before interrogation took place," and that "that communication was passed along to the detectives," or at least to Detective Fumagalli, by Officer Richardson. However, the court concluded that these demands
did not equate to an invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda , because they were made prior to interrogation. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Gupta was advised of his Miranda rights, "that he made a knowing and intelligent waiver" of those rights, and that he "did not assert...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kazadi v. State
..." Gupta v. State , 227 Md. App. 718, 745, 135 A.3d 926 (2016) (quoting Pantazes , 376 Md. at 681-82, 831 A.2d 432 ), aff'd , 452 Md. 103, 156 A.3d 785, cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 201, 199 L.Ed.2d 115 (2017).Implementing these constitutional guarantees, Md. Rule 5-616(a)(4) auth......
-
Payne v. State
...court's denial of a motion to suppress on " ‘only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.’ " Gupta v. State , 452 Md. 103, 129, 156 A.3d 785 (2017) (quoting Rush v. State , 403 Md. 68, 82–83, 939 A.2d 689 (2008) ). "[W]e ‘extend great deference to the findings of th......
-
Jenkins v. State
...compulsion that is brought about by the combination of custody and interrogation is crucial for the attachment of Miranda rights." Gupta, 156 A.3d at 801 (B) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Alston, 34 F.3d at 1244 (III) (A) ("Because the presence of both a custodial setting and......
-
Knight v. State
...in the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses." Gupta v. State, 227 Md. App. 718, 746 (2016) (citations omitted), aff'd, 452 Md. 103, cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 201 (2017). In doing so, the jury is free to "accept all, some, or none" of a witness's testimony. Correll v. State, 21......