Ramsey v. State
| Decision Date | 29 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 378,378 |
| Citation | 212 A.2d 319,239 Md. 561 |
| Parties | Paul Norman RAMSEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William A. Ehrmantraut, John J. Mitchell and Edward C. Donahue, Takoma Park, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Martineau, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., State's Atty. for Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, for appellee.
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, SYBERT, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and, after sentence, he has appealed as an indigent.
Seven questions have been raised and they will be considered and decided seriatim.
Appellant was arrested in Virginia and returned to Maryland by the Montgomery County police, and, after questioning, he confessed to them that he had participated in the Prince George's County robbery. Additional facts will be stated when the questions are considered.
Appellant first contends that he was denied due process of law because one of the State's witnesses referred in his testimony to other crimes with which appellant had been charged, and another State's witness, a psychiatrist, mentioned that appellant told him that he had confessed to the commission of the offense for which he was being tried, but the confession was untrue. In regard to the charge relative to other crimes, he argues that this was a violation of the rule which makes inadmissible testimony concerning other crimes which a defendant has committed, or has been charged with, before the defendant's credibility has been placed in issue by his taking the stand (we do not intimate that crimes of which a defendant had not been convicted, with certain exceptions, ordinarily would be admissible even though he does take the stand).
There are several answers to the above claims. First, before any mention was made of the then two pending charges of robbery in Montgomery County (the only ones mentioned), counsel for the appellant (who does not represent him in this appeal) approached the bench beyond the jury's hearing, and informed the trial judge of the other pending charges and said he wished to register an objection to any mention being made of them. After a short colloquy with the court, counsel, obviously believing that defendant's attack on the admissibility of, and the weight to be given to, his confession would be benefited by the jury having all of the facts, specifically and deliberately withdrew any objection to reference being made to the other pending charges. The assertion of even constitutional claims may, under certain circumstances, be foreclosed as a part of trial strategy. Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408. However, this Court has held that the rule of the admission, vel non, of other crimes is merely a rule of evidence and not a rule of constitutional law. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. v. State, 193 Md. 300, 67 A.2d 497. The defendant in a criminal case cannot have his cake and eat it too: he cannot explicitly withdraw an objection, because he sees a trial advantage to him by such withdrawal, and thereafter claim, on appeal, that his rights have been violated.
The reference of the psychiatrist to the effect that appellant had told him that he had confessed, if error, was harmless. The psychiatrist immediately stated that defendant told him the confession was not true, and the confession, itself, was later properly introduced into evidence. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., supra.
Next, the appellant claims his confession was inadmissible, relying upon Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. There is no evidence to show whether or not the police specifically advised the defendant of his right to remain silent or of his right to counsel; however, there was no evidence that he requested counsel or was denied the right to obtain the same. Although appellant claimed that one of the officers threatened to involve his wife and child in the commission of the crime and this induced him to confess, this was flatly denied by the officer, who testified further that no threats, promises, or inducements of any kind were made or held out to the accused. In fact, the officer did not know of the Prince George's County offense until the appellant told him of it. No lengthy detentions or interrogations were claimed. The trial judge concluded that the confession had been freely and voluntarily made and admitted it. We hold that his action was correct. Until more specific light is given by the Supreme Court on the subject under consideration, we adhere to our previous decisions. Mefford and Blackburn v. State, 235 Md. 497, 201 A.2d 824, cert. den. 380 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 944, 13 L.E.2d 825; Cowans and Hayes v. State, Md., 209 A.2d 552; Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870; McCoy v. State, 236 Md. 632, 204 A.2d 565; Cf. Jones v. State, 229 Md. 165, 182 A.2d 784.
This contention is of a rather frivolous nature. Appellant complains that he was prejudiced by the Sheriff showing him to one of the State's witnesses on the morning of the trial. Even after being shown the accused, the witness was unable to identify him with sufficient certainty so the court struck out the witness' testimony relative to identity. Obviously, the claim is without merit. Appellant's brief makes reference to the State's witness Herbert having seen 'appellant before trial.' There is nothing in the record extract (other than the witness' relation of the commission of the crime) to show that this witness ever saw the defendant before trial, and, if so, the circumstances under which he was seen; consequently, we do not pursue the matter further.
This contention also is of a somewhat frivolous nature. Appellant here assigns as error the fact that two psychiatrists called by the State testified as to their understanding of what the 'Spencer Rule' meant. No contention is made that either misstated the rule.
Again, there are several answers to the assignment of error. First, no objection was made to the psychiatrists giving their opinions; hence the question is not properly before us for consideration. Maryland Rule 885.
There can be little doubt that the prevailing and the better practice is not to have the doctor-witness express his view as to what the 'Spencer Rule' means, but to encompass within a question calling for the doctor's opinion relative to the sanity of an accused the requirements of mental capacity under that Rule necessary to hold an accused responsible to the criminal law for his actions. It is manifest, however, that no harm could befall an accused under either method; provided the doctor knew and applied the standards contained in the Rule, which both doctors did in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorsey v. State, 9
...error was prejudicial to the appellant. See e. g. Ferrell v. Warden, 241 Md. 432, 434, 216 A.2d 740, 742 (1966); Ramsey v. State, 239 Md. 561, 566, 212 A.2d 319, 322 (1965); Pearlman v. State, 232 Md. 251, 262, 192 A.2d 767, 773-74 (1963) cert. denied 376 U.S. 943, 84 S.Ct. 797, 11 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Bremer v. State
...during a mental examination, 'paternalistic' in purpose, ought not be admitted into evidence.' It then referred to Ramsey v. State, 239 Md. 561, 564-565, 212 A.2d 319, in which denial of due process was claimed because a State's witness, a psychiatrist, mentioned that the defendant told him......
-
Calhoun v. State
...we referred to Pressley v. State, 244 Md. 664, 667, 224 A.2d 866 (1966), as to the sufficiency of evidence, and Ramsey v. State, 239 Md. 561, 566-67, 212 A.2d 319 (1965), as to our function as an appellate court as to sufficiency of the We have already recited the evidence. Cummins describe......
-
Hyde v. State
...and Blackburn v. State, 235 Md. 497, 511-512, 201 A.2d 824, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 944, 13 L.Ed.2d 825; Ramsey v. State, 239 Md. 561, 565, 212 A.2d 319; Bull v. State, 239 Md. 101, 104-105, 210 A.2d 396; Cowans and Hayes v. State, 238 Md. 433, 209 A.2d 552; McCoy v. State, 236......