Haley v. State
| Decision Date | 21 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 36, September Term, 2006.,36, September Term, 2006. |
| Citation | 919 A.2d 1200,398 Md. 106 |
| Parties | Terry HALEY a/k/a Antoine Haley v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Allison Sayers, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, Stacy W. McCormack, Asst. Public Defender, on brief), for petitioner.
Brian S. Kleinbord, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER,* WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.
The primary issue we must decide in this case is whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information provided by a criminal defendant to his defense attorney that would later form the basis of his defense at trial because such information was intended to be disclosed to a third party. We shall hold that information provided by petitioner to his defense attorney, under the circumstances presented in this case, is protected by the attorney-client privilege even though the information would later form the basis of his defense at trial.1
This Court granted a writ of certiorari on June 14, 2006 to consider two questions:
1. Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information provided by a criminal defendant to his defense attorney that would later form the basis of his defense at trial because such information was "intended to be disclosed to a third party?"
Where the only description of the suspect involved in a carjacking is a "black female with long hair" wearing a "multi-colored shirt," did the officer in this case have probable cause to arrest the petitioner, a black male with short hair several hours later based primarily on the fact that he was wearing the same shirt?
393 Md. 245, 900 A.2d 751 (2006).
On August 1, 2003, Baltimore City Police Officer Nicholas Bingham received a call at approximately 2:15 a.m. for an in-progress carjacking in the area of the I-895 interchange at Shell Road and Chesapeake Avenue in Baltimore City.2 Officer Bingham was working the midnight to 8:00 a.m. patrol shift, was in uniform, and was driving a marked car. The dispatcher described the car as a dark four-door with a Maryland license plate number LRN-381 and indicated the direction the car was reported to be traveling. When Officer Bingham arrived at the interchange area, he immediately observed a vehicle driving toward him that matched the description given by the dispatcher. When the vehicle was two to three car lengths away, the Officer confirmed that the license plate number matched the description of the vehicle involved in the carjacking.
Officer Bingham blocked the suspect's car and tried to force it to stop. As soon as Officer Bingham angled his patrol car on Shell Road to create an obstacle for the other vehicle, "the vehicle in question that was coming directly at me made a sharp right-hand turn . . . more of a hook than a right-hand turn." While the driver executed the turn, Officer Bingham "got a clear profile shot of the" driver. Officer Bingham stated that the driver's shirt was Officer Bingham also testified on cross-examination at the motion to suppress that the shirt stood out in his memory because "I have one that's similar . . . it's like a, western colors like — the colors of the sunset . . . kind of like rectangular squares like bricks stacked, but not stacked in form but just stacked throughout." The driver was the only occupant in the car.
Officer Bingham pursued the vehicle after the car completed the U-turn and took off at a high rate of speed. The area traveled was described by Officer Bingham as "heavy industry known for chemical facilities." Officer Bingham added that the area consisted of "mainly warehouses and fuel storage and transfer facilities for like gasoline and diesel fuel." At that time of night, Officer Bingham reported that the type of traffic was "usually . . . tanker trucks and maybe light personal vehicle traffic going to and from the facilities." According to Officer Bingham, it was "highly unusual to see any pedestrians in the area unless they are working in that vicinity."
Officer Bingham pursued the car for several blocks but lost sight of it momentarily when it turned onto Remley Street, which "is a very bad road" because it is "semi-paved." The suspect's vehicle created a large cloud of dust when it turned. As a result, Officer Bingham backed off slightly. As the dust cleared, Officer Bingham saw that the suspect's vehicle had left the roadway and crashed into a series of trees. The driver was not in the car when Officer Bingham arrived at the car, and he did not see the driver leave the car because there was too much dust. The Officer looked inside the vehicle and found a butcher knife five to six inches in blade length on the floor of the passenger's side.
Officer Bingham radioed for additional units, including a K-9 unit and a helicopter, to assist in the search for the driver. Officer Bingham also requested the units that were at the scene with the victim to bring the victim, Leroy Singer, to the scene in order for him to identify his vehicle. When the units arrived, Singer identified his wrecked car and the police secured the area. Officer Bingham was in the area of the crash for approximately one hour while the police attempted to locate the driver. During that time, Officer Bingham spoke with employees of a trucking company and requested them to call the police if they saw anybody unusual or "a person in a multi-colored shirt."
When the police were unable to locate the driver, the vehicle was towed back to the crime lab at the police station. Officer Bingham returned to the police station to complete required paperwork and obtain the crime lab report. The victim was transported back to his residence. While waiting for the crime lab, Officer Bingham received an anonymous telephone call at approximately 6:20 a.m. indicating that "the person the police were looking for is walking on Shell Road near Chesapeake" Avenue. Officer Bingham returned to the Shell Road area with his lights and siren activated and saw a person walking on the road. Officer Bingham testified that "once I got to the vicinity of Shell Road and Chesapeake Avenue I observed a female, appeared to be a female wearing a multi-colored shirt that, to me, just stood out and matched exactly what I had seen earlier, but she had shorter hair." Officer Bingham got out of his car and ordered that person to stop. Because the suspect did not stop, but continued to walk, Officer Bingham drew his service weapon and ordered the person to the ground and to stop. Officer Bingham then "approached the suspect, put [the person] on the ground and placed [the person] in handcuffs for my safety." On cross-examination, the Officer stated that, "initially I wanted that person stopped and I wanted to approach that person trying to figure out if, indeed, it may have been my suspect initially." He stated that "there was no doubt in my mind that this individual was the same person operating the vehicle involved in the carjacking," explaining as follows:
Officer Bingham pointed out that the individual was within walking distance, probably five or six blocks, from the scene of the crash. Officer Bingham noted that the individual's hands and legs had "small cuts that would be consistent with sticker bushes or maybe twigs." Inside a purse carried by the suspect, Officer Bingham found a female wig, black in color, that matched the hair on the head of the operator that was driving Mr. Singer's vehicle.
The central issue at trial was the credibility of witnesses. Haley testified on his own behalf and presented a version of events that differed significantly from Singer's version.3 Leroy Singer testified that he left his home at eight or nine in the evening and went to a bar called Janet's to watch a baseball game on the evening of August 1, 2003. At approximately 2:00 a.m., he left the bar in his Marauder Grand Marquis and began the three to four mile drive back to his home. As Singer drove along Patapsco Avenue, he "saw this girl waving me down, which I thought she was in trouble."4 Singer described the individual as a black female, wearing "an orange type shirt." Believing that it was somebody in trouble, Singer stopped his car. Officer Bingham testified that, at the time of the accident, Singer had described the individual as having shoulder length black hair wearing "a multi-colored shirt" with "reds, browns, and blues in it."
Once inside the front passenger seat of the car, the individual asked Singer if he wanted to have a good time. According to Singer, the woman offered sex, and, in response, he told her to get out of my car. The individual then pulled out a butcher knife and stated: "Give me all your money." The female also put the knife to Singer's throat and threatened to cut him from ear to ear. Singer responded that h e would give her his money, but added that he only had $20 in his possession and that it was in his pocket. As he took off his seatbelt and reached for his pocket, Singer testified that he saw a cab coming up the street. When the cab approached, Singer jumped out of his car and ran for the cab. Singer yelled to the cab driver, Lester Smith, "help, call the police, I'm being carjacked," and that his assailant had a knife. In the meantime, the female took control of Singer's car and fled the scene.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokeling v. State
...judge unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. Longshore, 399 Md. at 498, 924 A.2d 1129; see also Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 131, 919 A.2d 1200 (2007) ("We review the findings of fact for clear error and do not engage in de novo fact-finding."). Furthermore, when the motio......
-
Thompson v. State
...of law. Brown, 397 Md. at 98, 916 A.2d 245. However, the appellate court does "not engage in de novo fact-finding." Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 131, 919 A.2d 1200 (2007) (citation omitted). Furthermore, where the motion to suppress is denied, the evidence is to be reviewed in the light mos......
-
Lewis v. State
...committed or was committing a criminal offense." Moulden v. State, 212 Md. App. 331, 344, 69 A.3d 36 (2013) (quoting Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 133, 919 A.2d 1200 (2007)). The probable cause standard is "a practical, nontechnical conception that deals with the factual and practical consid......
-
Wilson v. State
...Md. 121, 133, 782 A.2d 862, 869 (2001). We employed a three-tier analysis of police interaction with citizens. Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 131-32, 919 A.2d 1200, 1214-15 (2007); Swift, 393 Md. at 149-51, 899 A.2d at 873. The most intrusive encounter is an arrest, which requires probable ca......
-
§38.01 INTRODUCTION
...of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel or Fifth Amendment due process rights."); Haley v. State, 919 A.2d 1200, 1212 (Md. 2007) ("Although the attorney-client privilege is not given express constitutional protection, nevertheless the privilege is so essent......
-
§ 38.01 Introduction
...of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel or Fifth Amendment due process rights."); Haley v. State, 919 A.2d 1200, 1212 (Md. 2007) ("Although the attorney-client privilege is not given express constitutional protection, nevertheless the privilege is so essent......
-
§ 38.12 WAIVER
...to privileged communications in part this is a waiver as to the remainder . . . about the same subject.").[125] See Haley v. State, 919 A.2d 1200, 1212, 1213 (Md. 2007) ("It is well settled that the fact that a defendant testifies on his own behalf does not waive the privilege."; "Haley's c......
-
§ 38.12 Waiver
...to privileged communications in part this is a waiver as to the remainder . . . about the same subject."). [126] See Haley v. State, 919 A.2d 1200, 1212, 1213 (Md. 2007) ("It is well settled that the fact that a defendant testifies on his own behalf does not waive the privilege."; "Haley's ......