Hammond v. State

• Decision Date: 21 April 1938
• Docket Number: 5.
• Citation: 198 A. 704,174 Md. 347
• Parties: HAMMOND v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

198 A. 704

174 Md. 347

HAMMOND v. STATE.

No. 5.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 21, 1938

Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne Judge.

Richard Hammond was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

A confession which admitted absence of threats or promises and stated that defendant made it of his "own free will" was not inadmissible in murder prosecution because it recited that anything defendant would say might be "used for or against" him, as against contention that quoted phrase might have induced defendant to hope for some resulting favor, in view of defendant's nervous condition and limited intelligence.

J. Howard Payne and Simon Silverberg, both of Baltimore (Silverberg & Silverberg, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles T. LeViness, 3d, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Herbert R. O'Conor Atty. Gen., and Elmer J. Hammer, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for the State.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN and JOHNSON, JJ.

URNER, Judge.

The appellant was indicted and tried in the criminal court of Baltimore city for the murder of Edith Milman on August 12 1937. The case was submitted for trial before the court without a jury. Three exceptions were reserved in the course of the trial, which resulted in a verdict of 'guilty of murder in the first degree.' After a motion by the defendant for a new trial had been overruled by the supreme bench of Baltimore city, he was sentenced by the criminal court to suffer death, and from the judgment imposing the sentence he has appealed.

One of the exceptions (the third) refers to a question which the court permitted to be asked the defendant on his cross-examination. As his answer was favorable to his defense, the ruling would not be ground for reversa even if we could regard it as erroneous. But we have no doubt as to its propriety.

The other two exceptions were taken because of the admission in evidence of two statements by the defendant, the first denying that he had any knowledge of the crime and the second, in effect, confessing his guilt. Before those statements were admitted the State had produced the following evidence:

It was testified by Colman Milman, husband of the woman who was the victim of the homicide, that on the night it was committed his wife retired about 11 o'clock in their apartment over his store at 400 North Fremont street in Baltimore city; that about a quarter of 12, while he was in the store, he heard his wife screaming, and when he went into the hallway adjacent to the store he saw her standing on the second floor with her head bleeding, and she said, 'Callie, a colored fellow hit me twice in the head'; that she was brought downstairs by the tenant of the third floor apartment; and that she died nine days later.

While the record on appeal does not appear to be complete, it justifies the conclusion that the death of Mrs. Milman resulted from the injury she received in the attack to which the testimony refers.

Delmar Gross, the third floor tenant, testified that on the night of the attack on Mrs. Milman he was in his apartment, and about a quarter of 12 he heard screams and ran downstairs to the second floor, where he found Mrs. Milman standing in the hallway and bleeding from her ear; that she said a colored man had hit her on the head while she was in bed, and had run downstairs.

It was proved by Officer Fogarty that a hole had been cut in a screen door at the rear of the house, and that a pair of shoes had been left at the foot of the stairs in the hallway.

The testimony in chief of William Taylor is thus summarized in the record: 'That he was in the store on August 12th, and it was nearly twelve o'clock. That he heard screaming. That he looked toward the dining room. That he saw a fellow come downstairs and look into the store and go out through the dining room. That he had seen that fellow before, and knew him. That, that fellow was Hammond (the defendant). That he knew him by the name of Pap. That the defendant went out the back, towards the kitchen. That he, Taylor, is in jail now as he was convicted of burglary, and that while awaiting trial on this charge, the defendant called him and said to him, 'Why did you pick me out of the line-up' and that the witness said, 'You done it, didn't you', and the defendant said, 'I plead guilty--I confessed to it', and that the defendant also said to the witness, 'My brother-in-law came up there and identified my shoes.''

Alfred Redwood testified, according to the record, in part, as follows: 'That he knows Hammond. That he lived with Hammond's sister and that Hammond lived with them. That he saw three pairs of shoes at the station house, and picked out one pair as Hammond's. That he knew the shoes, and had seen them for a couple of months. That Hammond was there at the time. That Hammond told the police in the witness' presence, that the shoes were his. That witness identified the same shoes in Court, and stated they were Hammond's.'

Dorothy Matthews testified: 'That she went in Milman's place the night of the 12th of August, near twelve o'clock. That she heard someone scream. That she saw this man Hammond when he was going through the dining room. That she did not know him before that. That he went out the back door of the kitchen. That she ran to the front door and saw him peep out of the alley. That she noticed he didn't have on any shoes. That she saw the same man at the Western Police Station in the line-up of six men. That she identified Hammond in the Court Room. That she later saw the shoes in the hallway by the stairs, before the police picked them up. That she identified the shoes in the Court Room. That they were on the first floor. That when the man came down the stairs, she saw his face because he looked toward the store.'

Lieut. Rollman was then called as a witness, and we quote as follows from the record of his testimony:

'That after the arrest, he asked Hammond if he wanted to make a statement and told him of his rights, anything he may say may be used against him as evidence in Court. That he told him he did not have to make a statement if he didn't want to. That he made a statement, which was reduced to writing. That in the morning, after the shoes had been identified in the presence of Hammond, by Redwood, Hammond stated they were his shoes, and he said he would tell the truth about the matter.

'Q. He had already made one statement, had he not? A. He had. * * *

'Q. Did he sign that first statement? A. He did.

'Q. Were any promises, or inducements made to him? A. No promises, threats or duress at all was had.' On cross-examination the witness said that the statement about to be introduced had been read by and to the defendant and signed by him, and it was then admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection. It is herewith quoted in full: 'Statement of Richard Hammond, colored, Alias Pap, Age, 31, 10 West York Street, taken at the Western Police Station 10:30 a. m. on August 22nd, 1937. I do not know where I was on August 11th, I cannot say. I do not know where Mulberry Street and Fremont Avenue is, I know where Baltimore Street and Fremont Avenue is, but do not know the streets north of Baltimore Street. I know the man who picked me out, that is, I know him to see him on the street but do not know his name. At the Western Police Station, I saw these three people pick me as the man. I do not know anything about it. I was shown the candlestick but I do not know anything about that. I was asked whose shoes I have on and I said I have my brother's shoes on. My brother's name is William Hammond, 820 Sharp Street. I was shown a pair of shoes in the office at the Western Police Station and I tried them on and these shoes fit me but I never saw them before and do not know who they belong to.'

After the admission of that statement, to which the first exception was taken, the testimony of Lieut. Rollman, thus, in part, proceeded: 'That after the identification of the shoes his second statement was then made. That when Redwood was at the station house, four pairs of shoes were lined up on the window sill. That they were shown in the presence of Hammond and Redwood said they are Pappy's, Richard Hammond's shoes, and Hammond then and there said the shoes are my shoes. That the defendant was again told that no threats were being made or any promises offered to him; he was asked if he wanted to make a statement and he said, he did. That the statement was taken, put into writing, later typewritten, and read to him and signed by him in the presence of Sergeant Forrest, Officer Maskell and myself.'

An objection by the defendant to the admission of the second statement having been overruled, it was read in evidence, as follows: 'Statement of Richard Hammond colored, Alias Pap, taken at the Western Police Station on August 22, 1937. After being informed of my rights and being told that anything I say may be used for or against me later, I make this statement of my own free will, without any threats being made against me or any promises made to me. I was drinking a little that night and I was up town and I got in a window and I saw a woman in bed and she screamed and I ran down the steps and out the back and jumped over the fence. It might have been Mulberry and Fremont Street, but I do not remember if it was. I lost my shoes at the time and I went straight home to 10 West York Street and my sister Madeline let...