Richardson v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 344,344
• Citation: 287 A.2d 339,14 Md.App. 487
• Parties: William RICHARDSON v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 487

14 Md.App. 487

287 A.2d 339

William RICHARDSON v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 344.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 16, 1972.

William H. Murphy, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.

Josef E. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Milton B. Allen, State's Atty. for Baltimore City and Sandra A. O'Connor, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City of the brief, for appellee.

Argued before POWERS, CARTER and GILBERT, JJ.

CARTER, Judge.

The appellant William Richardson was convicted by Judge James W. Murphy, sitting non-jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, of assault with intent to rape an 18-month-old baby girl and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He appeals from this judgment contending 1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to justify his conviction, 2) that the court committed prejudicial error in admitting in evidence clothing illegally seized from his person, and 3) that he was denied due process by the failure of the State to produce his statements to police for his examination prior to trial.

I

The undisputed evidence relevant to the appellant's first contention shows that the incident occurred on April 1, 1970, at the second-third floor apartment occupied jointly by Diane Wright and Louise Mitchell, located at 1518 East Preston Street in Baltimore City. Diane Wright occupied the third floor with her 18-month-old baby girl Tracey, and Louise Mitchell occupied the second floor with her boy friend William Richardson, the appellant. Mrs. Mitchell's two children Denise, 9 years old, and Yolanda, 7 years old, had a separate bedroom on the third floor. On the morning of April 1, Diane Wright left for work at 6:45 at which time Tracey was sleeping and in normal condition. On this morning, Mrs. Mitchell had advised the appellant she was not feeling well; wherefore, when the City Sanitation crew, with which he worked, was in the neighborhood of the apartment, he stopped to see her about 9:30. At this time he delivered the children's new Easter pants to Denise in her bedroom on the third floor, in compliance with a previous request by Mrs. Mitchell.

Denise testified that when the appellant brought her pants to her, she and her sister were in their bedroom which was directly across from Tracey's bedroom. After the appellant had delivered the pants, he entered Tracey's bedroom and closed the door. She further testified that after ('I think after') the appellant had entered Tracey's bedroom, she heard Tracey crying but was afraid to enter for fear the appellant would beat her. When the appellant had left Tracey's bedroom, Tracey, crying and with blood inside and outside her diapers, came into Denise's bedroom. Denise then took Tracey downstairs to Denise's mother who was with the appellant. The appellant held Tracey on his lap for a short time. At her mother's direction Denise then washed Tracey and put fresh diapers on her. Thereafter, Tracey fell asleep and was taken upstairs to her bedroom by Denise. Tracey continued to sleep until her babysitter Mrs. Moore took her to her home about 3:30 p. m. and afterwards to the hospital.

Mrs. Mitchell stated that after the appellant had entered her bedroom and awakened her about 9:30 a. m., he had gone to the store. After he returned, Denise brought Tracey who was crying into Mrs. Mitchell's bedroom. She agreed with Denise's testimony concerning what had occurred after Denise brought Tracey into her bedroom. Mrs. Mitchell further stated that she and the appellant had had sexual intercourse on the night of March 30.

Dr. Herbert Nasdore, an obstetrician and gynecologist, testified that he was employed by the Baltimore City Police Department. He was called to Johns Hopkins Hospital at approximately 9:30 p. m. on April 1 to examine Tracey Wright. When he arrived, Tracey was in the operating room awaiting surgery. His examination revealed a tear from the posterior of her vagina to her anal opening, approximately 1 1/2 inches long and 1 1/2 inches deep. He testified that the tear was caused by some blunt instrument having been applied against that portion of the child's body where the tear existed and that the injury could have been inflicted by an erect male penis. He further stated that while it was possible for an injury of this type to be self-inflicted by a child falling on a toy or some blunt-type object, such was not a likely cause in this instance because there was no bruised area surrounding the tear. He further stated that the tear could not have been caused by masturbation because it was too extensive to have been caused by a child of this age. He estimated the time of the injury at about 3:00-3:30 p. m. on April 1; however, he qualified this estimate by stating that it was 'a very gross estimate because there is no way we can determine when a wound occurred, when it stopped bleeding.' He further stated that his opinion was based on the appearance of the wound when he made his examination at 9:30 p. m. He admitted he had no history of the physical activity of the child or the extent of attention to the tear between 9:30 a. m. and the time when she had arrived at the hospital about 5:30 p. m. In respect to whether activity of an injured person would affect the appearance of a wound, he testified, 'I think so. Like anything else, if you have a cut and you bump it or push it or move, it starts bleeding again.'

Lieutenant Eppel of the Crime Laboratory testified that his chemical analysis of the trousers taken from the appellant showed human bloodstains of type 'O' blood (Tracey's blood was type 'O') 1 1/2 to 2 inches in size located on the inside of the upper thigh area. He further testified the undershorts taken from the appellant showed made sperm stains on the fly area which could have been placed there several days prior to April 1. He further stated that the stains on Tracey's bedsheet had been caused by human blood and that the bloodstains on the appellant's trousers had worked their way from the outside toward the inside.

The appellant testified that when he had taken Mrs. Mitchell's children's pants to them about 9:30 a. m. on April 1, he had remained on the third floor for 3 or 4 minutes and that he had not entered Tracey's bedroom nor had any contact with her on that occasion. He further stated that after Denise brought Tracey downstairs, he had held Tracey on his lap for a short time.

The test for the legal sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a conviction is well settled. In Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 459, 247 A.2d 731, we held that the test to be applied was whether the evidence either shows directly or supports a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the trier of fact could fairly be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of the offense charged. See also Smith & Samuels v. State, 6 Md.App. 59, 81, 250 A.2d 285; Bailey v. State, 6 Md.App. 496, 510, 252 A.2d 85. In speaking of the application of this test to circumstantial evidence, we said in Metz v. State, 9 Md.App. 15 at 23, 262 A.2d 331 at 335:

'* * * In short, we feel that the test for sufficiency is the same whether the evidence be direct, circumstantial, or provided by rational inferences therefrom.'

Applying the rule enunciated in Williams, supra, and Metz, supra, to the evidence in its totality, we conclude that Judge Murphy as trier of the fact was not clearly in error in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed an assault upon 18-month-old Tracey Weight with intent to rape her.

II

The appellant's second contention is that there was insufficient probable cause to justify his warrantless arrest and therefore that the seizure of his clothing incident to his arrest was unlawful and its admission in evidence constituted prejudicial error.

The evidence relative to the issue of probable cause to arrest the appellant consisted of the testimony of Officer Dix. He testified that on the evening of April 1 he had been officially requested to assist in the investigation of a report that Tracey Wright had been sexually assaulted. Officer Dix further stated that prior to the appellant's arrest, he had interviewed witnesses, including the appellant, who were at the apartment. During these interviews, Mrs. Mitchell, Diane Wright, and Mrs. Moore had informed him 1) that they had been present at the apartment where the injury had occurred during the day of April 1, 2) that the injury to the baby had been discovered by Denise on the third floor, 3) that the baby had been brought downstairs and her bloody diapers removed, 4) that the appellant was the only male who had had access to the apartment, 5) that the appellant had been at the apartment during the day of April 1, and 6) that the appellant had not handled the baby after she had been injured. He further stated that during his interview with the appellant, he had observed that the appellant appeared nervous, that while the appellant had been seated, he had covered the area inside the upper portion of his thighs with his hands, and that when the appelland had stood up, he had observed a stain on the appellant's trousers in the area he had covered with his hands. The stain had a 'dark-red, brown, black' color which had indicated to him it was dried blood. Prior to the appellant's interview, Officer Dix had personal knowledge that the victim had bled profusely as a result of the sexual assault.

After receiving this information and making these observations, Officer Dix had placed the appellant under arrest at about 2:20 a. m. on April 2. Promptly thereafter he had seized the appellant's trousers and his undershorts, which also contained stains, as probable evidence of the alleged sexual assault.

In discussing the sufficiency of probable cause for a warrantless arrest for felony generally and in particular where the probable cause consists of information furnished the police by a disclosed informer, this Court speaking...