Lipscomb v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 116,116 |
| Citation | 5 Md.App. 500,248 A.2d 491 |
| Parties | Michael Willie LIPSCOMB v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
John D. Hackett, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Charles A. Herndon Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Michael Willie Lipscomb, the appellant, was tried jointly with a co-defendant, Eric Dabney, on March 7, 1968 before Judge Anselm Sodaro without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Lipscomb was found guilty of rape, robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, and the commission of a perverted sex act. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment, twenty years and one year, respectively, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction.
On this appeal Lipscomb contends:
(1) He was prejudiced by the implicating testimony of his co-defendant at the joint trial.
(2 The sentence, under the circumstances, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
(3) The court erred in accepting the Miranda statements of the police without ascertaining the existence of a knowledgeable waiver.
Miss Ann Catherine Williams, the alleged victim of the crimes, testified at the trial that on July 16, 1967 between 11:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon, she noticed two youths whom she identified at the trial as the appellant Lipscomb and his co-defendant Dabney, peering in her basement apartment window; that after she admonished them, they departed, but they returned shortly thereafter to request her permission to take certain items that had been discarded outside her apartment; and that after she consented to the youths' taking certain of these items, Lipscomb returned to tell her that Dabney had been apprehended by a policeman for stealing the items that she had permitted them to take. Miss Williams did not permit entry into her apartment by either of the youths but spoke to them through a barred window and a partially opened door on a chain latch.
She further testified that after waiting approximately five minutes to make certain that Lipscomb had departed, she stepped into the hallway to go outside the apartment building, at which time Lipscomb grabbed her from behind, pressed a knife to her throat and asked her to engage in sexual intercourse with him; that when she declined, Dabney took her apartment keys, opened the door, and she was forced into the apartment; that Lipscomb struck her in the face when she refused to lie on her bed, after which he forced her to commit fellatio upon him, and thereafter compelled her to have intercourse with him, cutting her arm with his knife during the relationship; that Dabney held her leg down while Lipscomb was engaged in the intercourse; and that before Lipscomb departed, he took her watch from her arm and her ring from her finger. After the youths had left, Miss Williams took a shower, changed her clothes and obtained the assistance of a policeman about a block from her apartment.
On cross-examination Miss Williams denied knowing a girl by the name of Linda Smith. She also testified that she had identified Lipscomb at a lineup almost two weeks after the commission of the crime.
Dr. George Wells testified that he examined Miss Williams at 3:20 p. m. on July 16, 1967 and found a one-quarter inch penetrating laceration of the right upper arm and evidence of sexual intercourse.
Officer William R. Helmick testified that Miss Williams, crying, stopped him about a block from her apartment and told him of her rape and robbery. With the descriptions she had given him, the officer recalled having previously observed two suspects in the area, whom he identified at the trial as the appellant and Dabney. Unable to apprehend them at that time, he again observed Dabney on July 25 and captured him after a chase. The officer further testified that Dabney stated that Lipscomb alone committed the sexual assaults. Appellant objected to Dabney's statement 'as against Lipscomb.' The trial judge accepted the statement 'as against Dabney only and not as against Lipscomb.'
Officer Helmick testified that, with Dabney's aid, he apprehended Lipscomb, took him to the police station and there 'advised him of his rights.' An express written waiver of the right to counsel at the lineup, signed by the appellant, was introduced into evidence.
Lipscomb testified on his own behalf that he had first seen Miss Williams on a Friday, about five days prior to the date of the alleged crimes, at the Greyhound Bus Terminal with her girlfriend, Linda Smith; that he was invited by the girls to Miss Williams' apartment where he kissed the prosecutrix; that he returned to her apartment on July 16 and had consensual sexual relations with her, stealing her watch at the conclusion of the intercourse; and that while he never again saw Linda Smith, he did receive a Christmas card from her, which contained five dollars and her photograph. These items were admitted into evidence.
Eric Dabney then testified and his testimony closely corresponded to that of the victim. He attested to Lipscomb's sexual acts upon Miss Williams and the theft of her watch and ring. On cross-examination, he testified that Miss Williams struggled throughout the incident, and that he was compelled to hold her leg at one point so that Lipscomb would not become angered and kill her.
Appellant contends that the testimony of Dabney, his jointly-indicted co-defendant, was instrumental in the finding of his guilt and thereby prejudiced him. He asserts that consideration of Dabney's testimony at the joint trial vitiated his opportunity for a fair determination on the question of guilt or innocence because of the strong inclination of a co-defendant to give testimony incriminating his co-defendant and exonerating himself. In support of this contention, appellant relies upon Bruton v. United States, 361 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, decided May 20, 1968.
Bruton reconsidered and overruled Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278, a case which held, in effect, that the trial court's instructions to the jury to disregard a defendant's confession implicating his co-defendant was a sufficient limitation on the effect of the hearsay admission and provided the nonconfessing codefendant with adequate protection on the issue of his guilt or innocence. The Bruton court concluded that in a joint trial before a jury the introduction of an extrajudicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belcher v. State
...Belcher was not denied his right to confrontation and there was no Bruton violation. See, e.g., Lipscomb v. State, 5 Md. App. 500, 506, 248 A.2d 491, 494 (1968) (holding that, because the codefendant testified at trial, the defendant's "reliance upon Bruton is ill-placed, the rationale of t......
-
Ball v. State
...and became available for cross-examination. Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971); Lipscomb v. State, 5 Md.App. 500, 506, 248 A.2d 491 (1968). There is no constitutional confrontation problem when one's accuser is ultimately available for As was explained in R......
-
Fisher v. State
...argument was also before us on yet an earlier occasion. We rejected it, speaking through then Chief Judge Murphy, in Lipscomb v. State, 5 Md.App. 500, 248 A.2d 491 (1968). In a joint trial of two codefendants for rape, one claimed that the sexual intercourse was completely consensual. He wa......
-
Eiland v. State
...argument was also before us on yet an earlier occasion. We rejected it, speaking through then Chief Judge Murphy, in Lipscomb v. State, 5 Md.App. 500, 248 A.2d 491 (1968). In a joint trial of two codefendants for rape, one claimed that the sexual intercourse was completely consensual. He wa......