Mulligan v. State, 97

• Decision Date: 25 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 97,97
• Parties: Robert T. MULLIGAN v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 429

10 Md.App. 429

271 A.2d 385

Robert T. MULLIGAN v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 97.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 25, 1970.

[271 A.2d 386] Arthur Dale Leach, Hyattsville, with whom was Richard S. Paulson, Hyattsville, on the brief, for appellant.

Gilbert Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., for Baltimore City and Hilary D. Caplan, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before ORTH, THOMPSON, and POWERS, JJ.

ORTH, Judge.

At a bench trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore Robert T. Mulligan was found guilty of the second degree murder of Mary L. Mulligan, eight months of age. A sentence of 12 years was imposed. On appeal we reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new

                trial.  Mulligan v. State, 6 Md.App. 600, 252 A.2d 476 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Mulligan primus).  on retrial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore Mulligan was again convicted of murder in the second degree, this time by a jury, and again a 12 year sentence was imposed.  Appeal from that judgment is now before us.  The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a third trial.  We are obliged to reverse the judgment because a statement obtained from Mulligan by custodial interrogation reached the jury without a preliminary determination by the trial court that it was voluntary.  It was in fact and in law involuntary.  1  Both the failure of the court to make a preliminary determination as to voluntariness and the placing of the statement before the jury without such determination were due to the tactics of the prosecutor
                

THE LAW

The law is firmly established. In Barnhart v. State, supra, we reviewed the rule to be applied when a defendant challenges a statement obtained from him by the police. We quoted Day v. State, 196 Md. 384, 399, 76 A.2d 729, 736:

'The practice in this State, approved in many cases, is that the court first hears evidence without the jury to determine whether a confession is voluntary and should be admitted. If it decides to admit it, the same evidence is then given to the jury, as it has the final determination, irrespective of the court's preliminary decision, whether or not the confession is voluntary, and whether it should be believed. In so doing, the jury is entitled to have before it all of the evidence which affects the voluntary character of the document, and which the court passed upon in admitting it.'

We said, 5 Md.App. at 226, 246 A.2d at 283, citing Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908:

'A defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his challenged confession is introduced without the preliminary decision by the trial judge of its voluntariness after an adequate hearing.'

The trial judge's conclusion that the confession was voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity. Lynch v. State, 9 Md.App. 441, 265 A.2d 283; Murphy v. State, 8 Md.App. 430, 260 A.2d 357. And a statement by the defendant found to be involuntary by the trial judge is not to be heard by the jury which determines guilt or innocence. Barnhart v. State, supra, 5 Md.App. at 226, 246 A.2d 280. If the inadmissible confession gets before the jury it is reversible error even though it is thereafter excluded and the jury instructed not to consider it as part of the evidence as knowledge of the confession by the jury is apt to influence unduly their deliberations of the extent of depriving the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. Smith v. State, 189 Md. 596, 606, 56 A.2d 818. See Cleveland v. State, 8 Md.App. 204, 259 A.2d 73. So any statement obtained in violation of the procedural standards enunciated in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 is per se to be excluded and the State is not afforded an opportunity to show that its admission was harmless error. Pratt v. State, 9 Md.App. 220, 263 A.2d 247; Hutchinson v. State, 9 Md.App. 41, 262 A.2d 321. We point out:

'No distinction can be drawn between statements which are direct confessions and statements which amount to 'admissions' of part or all of an offense. The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely 'exculpatory.' If a statement made were Miranda held that a statement obtained from an accused during a 'custodial interrogation' is to be excluded unless designated procedural safeguards are followed. 'By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' Miranda at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.

in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution.' Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476-477, 86 S.Ct. at 1629.

THE FACTS

Appellant made four statements concerning the bady. The first was at the hospital to which he and his wife had taken the child in an ambulance. They were told by Dr. Frank Ditori that the child had died. Dr. Ditori said the child was brought in by two firemen who were attempting resuscitation. He observed that the child was beyond resuscitation and declared her dead on arrival. There were 'some marks on the child's body, bruises. Several of these were located on the legs. There was a large one located on the chin. At this point I turned the child over and also noted a large bruise on the child's lower back.' The doctor talked to appellant and Mrs. Mulligan. He questioned them 'as to whether the child had been sick previously and had any sustained illnesses or in fact had had any accidents which may have caused some marks on the child's body.' Appellant said that the child had been well and that there had been no accidents involving her. He could not account for the bruises.

The second was made to the police. Lt. Charles W. Goodrich testified that he first approached appellant at the school where appellant was employed. He told appellant they 'were investigating the death of his baby and I asked him if he would come to the Southwestern District and discuss the case with me.' They went to the police station in a police car. On the way the police questioned him. Goodrich testified:

'All the questioning mostly was done in the automobile on the way to the station. It was more or less-I was talking with Mr. Mulligan for my purpose of getting a background on him and he elaborated. He told me he had two or three years of college. He went to a school in Virginia or Washington and I was trying to more or less familiarize myself with Mr. Mulligan and I asked him questions, how long he had been at the school, what did he teach, what grade did he teach, and then he said could you be specific and tell me what this is about and I told him we were investigating the death of his bady, Mary Mulligan.

At this point I asked him, 'Is there anything else you have to add to the statement you gave to the police at the hospital? He said, 'No, sir.' It was at this point that I decided the investigation should be completed further and some other place. (sic)

As soon as we arrived at the station he was put on the books and placed in the cell block.' ²

The third was at the police station to his wife in the presence of the police. Appellant admitted he had beaten the baby.

The fourth was a formal statement thereafter obtained by the police by interrogation.

The statements were all made prior to Miranda which was decided 13 June 1966. Therefore the police did not have the benefit of its holdings and it is conceded by the State that the required warnings were not given appellant by the police. The first trial of appellant was subsequent to the Miranda decision and thus appellant's case was within its ambit as it applies to all cases the trial of which began after the date of the decision. It was because the fourth statement was admitted in evidence at the first trial that we reversed the judgment. Mulligan v. State, supra. Miranda was, of course, also applicable to appellant's retrial. Compare Jenkins v. State of Delaware, 395 U.S. 213, 89 S.Ct. 1677, 23 L.Ed.2d 253; Boone v. State, 3 Md.App. 11, 31-36, 237 A.2d 787. In Mulligan primus we said, 6 Md.App. at 609-610, 252 A.2d at 482:

'We think that the appellant was in custody within the meaning of Miranda at the time he accompanied the officer from the school to the police station. We cannot say that the appellant was not 'deprived of his freedom in any significant way."

However we expressly did not decide whether the second statement, made in the police car, was admissible. At 617, 252 A.2d 476, at 482.

Appellant moved to suppress the statements and there was a hearing out of the presence of the jury. At the close of the evidence adduced by the State and appellant on the issue the court, desiring to ascertain definitely what it was to rule upon, inquired if both the second statement, made in the police car, and the third statement, made to appellant's wife, were involved. The prosecutor said: 'The State is wishing to introduce into evidence only the statement made to his wife in the presence of Lieutenant Goodrich and those other persons in the room. That's the only statement the State is intending to offer.' He later reiterated: 'I am referring only to the statement made to the wife in the presence of the officers. That's all the State is attempting to introduce.' After extensive argument, continuing on to the next day the court found that the statement appellant made to his wife, even though made while he was in custody, was not the result of police interrogation, that it was without the Miranda directives and that it was freely and voluntarily made. It ruled that it was admissible. Cf...