Robinson v. State, 240

• Decision Date: 24 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 240,240
• Citation: 1 Md.App. 522,231 A.2d 920
• Parties: Frank F. ROBINSON v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 522

1 Md.App. 522

231 A.2d 920

Frank F. ROBINSON v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 240.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 24, 1967.

Michael Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellant.

Donald Needle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.

Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and TRAVERS, Special Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Frank F. Robinson, a young man, 18 years old, with a ninth grade education, was convicted by the Criminal Court of Baltimore of Assault with Intent to Rob, and was sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed three years in the Maryland Correctional Institution. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence and assigns as the errors in his trial: (1) the erroneous admission in evidence of a statement allegedly made by him, (2) the refusal of the Trial Court to find a verdict of 'Not Guilty' because of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding otherwise, (3) the refusal of the Trial Court to grant a motion of judgment of acquittal made by his attorney at the conclusion of the case.

The evidence presented at the trial revealed that Mrs. Lorraine Meekins was returning to her home at 45 Kossuth Street, Baltimore, Maryland, shortly after midnight on May 3, 1966, and when she was not far from her home, three boys approached her from the opposite side of the street on which she was walking. As they came within close proximity, one of the boys grabbed her purse, containing twenty-five to fifty dollars. A struggle ensued between the complaining witness and the defendant during which time she was screaming, and in the tussle, although the purse strap broke, the attempted theft was unsuccessful.

After the altercation, she ran to her home where she informed her husband and daughter of the occurrence. Her daughter called the police while she and her husband went out back into the street to find the boys that had attacked her.

She saw the defendant coming up the street and her husband inquired if he was one of the boys involved and she replied in the affirmative. Her husband then brought the defendant into the home to await the arrival of the police. She later identified the defendant as her attacker despite the fact that she had seen him for only a minute to a minute and a half, but this identification was made within 10 to 15 minutes after the event. The defendant denied ever grabbing for Mrs. Meekins' purse although admitting he was on the street at the time.

The defendant lived at 30 North Kossuth Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and had worked for two weeks at a restaurant in the 4500 Block, Reisterstown Road. His usual hours were from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m., but on this particular night he had worked overtime and was returning home about 11 p.m. His testimony was that while he was on the right hand side of the street, he heard Mr. Meekins ask if that was one of the boys and she replied that it was. As a consequence, he started to walk across the street to meet them. Her husband met him halfway across, took him into the house and then called the police. He denied all connections with the alleged attempt to rob Mrs. Meekins at the time, later denying the charges when formally made.

The defendant was taken into custody by the police and denies having made a statement to them. He freely admits that during the questioning an officer told him he 'had a right to lawyer, that you could have a lawyer' and in addition, was told he did not have to say anything until he had consulted with a attorney, and further, that anything he said could be used against him in Court.

Officer Ronald Mullen, assigned to the Southwestern District, was called in rebuttal for the sole purpose of repeating 'an oral statement' from the defendant. He does not state where he interrogated Robinson, but said another officer and his Sergeant were present. It is assumed they were all at the Southwestern District Station. The defendant answered that he didn't need a lawyer and didn't want a lawyer. At one point, the officer questioned Frank about his participation in the offense and he stated Frank became indignant when he suggested it was one of the other boys that had planned the offense, whereupon Frank replied that he had, in fact, pulled on the purse and that the other two boys with him ran when he made the grab.

Proper objections were made to the testimony at the time and overruled, as well as the motion to strike the testimony after its reception. At no point in the evidence does it appear the defendant was told or understood that he could have a lawyer furnished at the expense of the state if he was without the necessary funds to employ counsel of his own choosing. During the trial of the case, when this testimony was introduced into the defense on cross examination, the Court adopted the position that the case 'wouldn't come under the Miranda case.'

Oral confessions are in the same category as if in writing. They are to be given the weight the trier of fact decides and are subject to the same infirmities. See Whitmer v. State, 1 Md.App. 127, 227 A.2d 761, and cases cited therein.

The case of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384, U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, was not decided until June 13, 1966. This case was tried July 20, 1966,...