Parker v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 254,254 |
| Citation | 225 Md. 288,170 A.2d 210 |
| Parties | Jerry Lee PARKER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Harry A. Cole, Baltimore (Benjamin L. Brown and Brown, Allen & Watts, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Mary Arabian, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's
Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the commission of two armed robberies. He contends that the trial court was in error in admitting into evidence the written statement of the appellant by way of a confession.
One robbery was of a grocery store on Lafayette Avenue in Baltimore City. Two men entered the store, one took a sawed-off shot gun from under his jacket and held up the proprietor, an employee, and a customer, while the other proceeded to remove approximately $300 from the cash register. The second case involves the robbery of a liquor store on Harford Avenue. The pattern in this case was similar to the one involving the grocery store. The proprietor and an employee were held up, and in this instance $400 was taken from the cash register. At the trial none of the eye witnesses could identify the appellant as one of the robbers.
On December 30, 1959, the appellant was arrested at his home on Eutaw Place. When taken to police headquarters he was questioned by Detective Sergeant Burke concerning a series of robberies, but the appellant denied any knowledge of them. The interrogation lasted about one-half hour, whereupon the appellant was returned to his cell. Sergeant Burke testified that the appellant appeared to be in good physical condition then and made no complaints about his health.
Detective Sergeant Stevens testified that at about 7:30 P.M. on December 30, 1959, the appellant was brought into the Hold-up Squad Room at Detective Headquarters. There Sergeant Stevens, along with Detectives Craig and Walker, proceeded to discuss, among others, the grocery and liquor store robberies. The appellant gave a statement admitting the robberies, which was reduced to writing, signed by the appellant and witnessed by the three detectives. All testified that no force or violence was asserted toward the appellant, nor were any threats or promises made to him.
Sergeant Stevens further testified that the appellant never denied participation in the robberies, and that he did not confront the appellant with information to the effect that the appellant had been involved by others. Sergeant Craig's testimony was substantially to the same effect. However, Sergeant Walker, the third officer present at the time of the interrogation and confession, testified that the appellant at first denied any participation in the robbery 'several times', and that Sergeant Stevens acquainted the appellant with certain facts relating to his participation, and that other persons implicated the appellant.
The appellant testified that the officers stomped on his foot, slapped him in the mouth, punched him in the stomach, and threatened to throw him out of a window. At...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone v. State
...Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 559, 168 A.2d 510, 515 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 957, 82 S.Ct. 399, 7 L.Ed.2d 389 and Parker v. State, 225 Md. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 210 211 (1961).It appears that the procedure had its origin in Nicholson v. State, 38 Md. 140 (1873) where the trial court all......
-
Jackson v. Denno, 62
...Me. 121, 122, 190 A. 630, 631 (1937); State v. Grover, 96 Me. 363, 365-367, 52 A. 757, 758-759 (1902). MARYLAND: Parker v. State, 225 Md. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 210, 211 (1961); Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 559, 168 A.2d 510, 515 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 957, 82 S.Ct. 399, 7 L.Ed.2d 389......
-
Jackson v. State
...his free and voluntary act, and was "not a product of force, threats, or inducement by way of promise or advantage." Parker v. State, 225 Md. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 210 (1961). Voluntariness of a defendant's confession must be established in a two-tier approach. First, the trial court must rule......
-
Kinder v. Boles
...voluntariness, but only after the trial judge has independently decided the issue against the accused. See, e. g., Parker v. State, 225 Md. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 210, 211 (1961); Commonwealth v. Sheppard, 313 Mass. 590, 603-604, 48 N.E.2d 630, 639 (1943). This rule has also been adopted by the......