Long v. State

Decision Date18 June 1969
Docket NumberNo. 378,378
Citation7 Md.App. 256,254 A.2d 707
PartiesDonald Eugene LONG v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

James F. Garrity, Baltimore, for appellant.

Donald Needle, Asst. Atty. Gen, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William Parsons Fennell, State's Atty. for Kent County, Andrew L. Sonner and Earl C. Hill, Jr., Deputy State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, respectively, on the brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, Judge.

At about 1:00 A.M. on August 5, 1967, an automobile belonging to the wife of Donald Eugene Long, the appellant, was repossessed by a financial institution for the nonpayment of installment obligations thereon. When the company official noticed the rear window of the automobile was broken, and extensive blood stains on the seats, he reported the situation to the Montgomery County Police Department. At or about the same time, but probably thereafter, Detective Lieutenant Thomas Thear received a telephone call from Long, the appellant, stating he had shot Roland Ricketts in self-defense. Subsequent thereto, Long made several statements to the police officers which varied somewhat in details. One of these, statements, which was apparently accepted by the jury as being correct, was repeated by Detective Sergeant O. W. Sweat as follows:

'During this time, he went back over his story, stating that he had met Harold Ricketts in Frederick on the 4th of August, 1967, subsequently had met Roland Ricketts and that he and Roland were planning a job at the Karmax Grocery Store located in Frederick, Maryland. He stated that they were going to 'hit' it. asked him what he meant by 'hit' since there was a shotgun involved and at that time he stated that they were just going to hit the safe, they weren't going to hold anything up or any of this type crime. He related that he and Roland Ricketts had come to Montgomery County to Piney Meeting House Road earlier for the purpose of finding some tools which the defendants, Long, had previously hidden on Piney Meeting House Road, these being tools that they would use on the safe job. He related that they were unsuccessful in finding the tools and after being unsuccessful in finding the tools, Ricketts had gotten out of the car and test-fired the shotgun a couple of times, two or three times into the ground and gotten back. They then left this location and proceeded up Route 28 where they stopped at Quince Orchard Diner and Long went in and purchased a (C) ola-(C)ola. Ricketts did not go in the establishment and then they proceeded on on (sic) to where they stopped at Darnestown Texaco and purchased three dollars in gas. After leaving this location they went on north on Route 28 where they hit the intersection of Route 28 and Martinsburg Road. This intersection is completely L-shaped or Route 28 goes completely on a right angle turn. He stated that he missed this curve, went across the road and struck the fence at that location and after doing this, he backed the car out. The car was not damaged beyond being able to drive, the right side being damaged only. Went from this location and at this time Ricketts allegedly told him that he wanted him to go up the Sugar Loaf Mountain area. I asked him if he had asked Ricketts why and he stated that he didn't that he didn't know why he wanted him to go there and he still didn't know why he wanted to go there, only that Ricketts said he wanted to show him something. They went to this area, what would be Sugar Loaf-Comus Road going by way of Mt. Ephriam Road going out of Montgomery County and going back in Montgomery County Where they stopped at an isolated area where there were no houses in view from either direction. At that point, he stated that Ricketts got out of the car, out of the passenger's side, came around on his side of the vehicle and he had gotten out of the car and that Ricketts just walked up and put the shotgun in his chest and stated, 'Now'. He stated that he doesn't know why Ricketts was mad or what Ricketts would do this for. They had had no argument. He related that he grabbed the gun, got it away from Ricketts and when he got it away from him, he fired at him one time, the shot striking him in the right arm and stated that at this time the bleeding sounded like when you turn on a faucet. He related that he tried to apply the tourniquet, this handkerchief which was around the upper bicep area of the victim's arm, loaded him into the car and at that stated that he did not know whether it was the right front, the front seat or the rear seat that he put him into. He says that he then began coming down the road and subsequently went to the area of the Piney Meeting House Road where he took the body out because he thought the man was dead, left him laying on the ground and at that time, took the victim's wallet and identification papers, etc. and turned the pockets inside out to make an attempt to make it look like a robbery. He advised that he then drove from this area to his residence where he went into the house, changed clothes, had conversation with his wife, cleaned up, was then going to come out and clean the car up, however, stated that the car was gone and assumed that it had just been repossessed because his wife was behind in the payments and at that time he placed a call to Lt. Thear.

'Q. Now you were present when he was questioned before about the wallet?

'A. Yes sir.

'Q. And do you recall what his prior story was about the wallet?

'A. Yes sir.

'Q. What was that story?

'A. He said he didn't know anything at all about the wallet, that if he had one it must be in his car up in Frederick.

'Q. That's the deceased's wallet?

'A. That's the deceased's wallet, yes.

'Q. Then his story changed as you have just related, is that right?

'A. That's correct, sir.'

Investigation by the police department revealed that the deceased, Roland Ricketts, had purchased the shotgun with a bank check on August 4, and that the two Ricketts brothers, with some assistance from Long, had sawed off the barrel. There was a large blood spot on the highway at the point where Long stated the shooting had occurred. The body was also found, at the spot indicated by Long, with a wound on the back of the head and a large wound on the interior of the right elbow. A medical examiner testified that the cause of death was the loss of blood through the wound at the elbow. The pockets of the clothing on the body had been turned inside out at the time it was found; and there was no wallet or money on the body of the deceased except County to Kent County for trial. The jury for some small change. A bank credit card in the name of the deceased was found near the body. Police officers also located the burglar tools Long and Ricketts were unable to locate on the night in question.

The case was removed from Montgomery County for trial. The jury found Long guilty of manslaughter, and Judge George B. Rasin, Jr. imposed a sentence of ten years. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Lohss
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 28, 1973
    ... ... 'Refer 3371 TXDPS000 8-31-72 ... It has been confirmed that D. Sprinkle did board American flight 324 in Dallas and the three bags mentioned are also on board. Subj D. Sprinkle is described as white male in his twenties 5-8 to 5-10 160 to 165 long sandy blonde hair down to his shoulders with beard. Subj wearing multi-colored t-shirt with butter flower on front, blue jeans and sunshades-mirror type. Subj also wearing expensive ring and was observed flashing large roll of money around at the Dallas Airport by plainclothes officer. Have ... ...
  • Beasley v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1974
    ...that the latitude or scope of questions propounded on cross examination lie within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256 (, 254 A.2d 707). In this instance, we do not think that discretion was The facts in Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256, 254 A.2d 707 (1969), di......
  • Mulligan v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 10, 1973
    ...court. Williams v. State, 15 Md.App. 320, 290 A.2d 542 (1972); Jenkins v. State, 14 Md.App. 1, 285 A.2d 667 (1971); Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256, 254 A.2d 707 (1969); Duncan v. State, 5 Md.App. 440, 248 A.2d 176 (1968). Under the circumstances of the instant case, for the reasons hereinafte......
  • Bieber v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 27, 1970
    ...222, 228 A.2d 620. That sentences are imposed to run consecutively does not render the punishment cruel and unusual. Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256, 254 A.2d 707; Fisher v. State, 1 Md.App. 505, 231 A.2d Other Contentions Appellant's brief presents six other questions stated to be included pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT