Howell v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 57,57 |
| Citation | 5 Md.App. 337,247 A.2d 291 |
| Parties | William Waltz HOWELL v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Gerald Siegel, Philip D. Quint, Baltimore, on brief for appellant.
Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., James A. Wise, State's Attorney for Caroline County, Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
Appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Caroline County of storehouse breaking and larceny and was thereafter sentenced to a term of ten years imprisonment. He contends on this appeal (a) that certain statements made by him to the police were introduced in evidence in violation of the principles of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and (b) that he was convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
The evidence at trial showed that at 5:18 a. m. on Sunday, July, 2, 1967, the police were notified that the burglar alarm at Cos's Tavern had been actuated. Two officers immediately went to the tavern where they observed appellant sitting behind the wheel of a car parked approximately seventy-five feet north of the tavern. One of the officers went to the rear of the tavern where, after hearing a crash, he observed two cases of beer being pushed out of the tavern window, followed by one Wesley Eaton. Both Eaton and appellant were arrested at the crime scene.
The record discloses that after appellant was given his particularized four-fold Miranda warning, he stated that he didn't wish to talk to the police. Approximately an hour and a half later, while appellant was being 'processed' at the police station, he was told in narrative form that Eaton admitted that it was his idea to break into the tavern and that the appellant, with knowledge of the criminal design, brought him there from Baltimore to burglarize the premises. Without any questioning by police, appellant responded to this information by admitting that he knew Eaton, that he had picked him up hitchhiking, and that while they had stopped along the road, he did not know that Eaton intended to break into the premises. These statements were introduced in evidence over appellant's objection.
In Miranda, the court held at page 473, 86 S.Ct. at page 1627 that if, after the requisite warnings are given, 'the individual indicates in any manner at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.' While quite clearly appellant was in police custody when he made the incriminating admissions, we think it plain that his statements were not made in response to an 'interrogation' within the meaning of Miranda. On the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. State
...event be considered as resulting from an interrogation within the rationale and meaning of the Miranda decision.' In Howell v. State, 5 Md.App. 337, 247 A.2d 291 (1968), the defendant was under custodial arrest for burglary. The defendant was given his Miranda warnings and stated that he di......
-
Smith v. State
...cert. denied, 264 Md. 747 (1972) (review of evidence including statement of third party incriminating defendant); Howell v. State, 5 Md.App. 337, 247 A.2d 291 (1968), cert. denied, 253 Md. 734 (1969) (told of third party's statement incriminating In State v. Conover, 312 Md. 33, 537 A.2d 11......
-
Vines v. State
...Cert. denied, 264 Md. 747 (1972) (review of evidence including statement of third party incriminating defendant); Howell v. State, 5 Md.App. 337, 247 A.2d 291 (1968), Cert. denied, 253 Md. 734, Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 907, 90 S.Ct. 224, 24 L.Ed.2d 183 (1969) (told of third party's statement ......
-
Nelson v. Fulcomer, P-8315
...Cir.1974); People v. Doss, 44 Ill.2d 541, 256 N.E.2d 753 (1970); State v. Welch, 4 Or.App. 225, 476 P.2d 822 (1970); Howell v. State, 5 Md.App. 337, 247 A.2d 291 (1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 907, 90 S.Ct. 224, 24 L.Ed.2d 183 (1969).Only the Ninth Circuit has attempted to reconcile the Inn......