Streams v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 237,237 |
| Citation | 208 A.2d 614,238 Md. 278 |
| Parties | Frank STREAMS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Joseph G. Koutz, Baltimore, for appellant.
Robert J. Martineau, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.
The appellant, Streams, seeks to reverse five convictions of robbery by Judge Harlan, sitting without a jury, for which he was sentenced to a total of nineteen years' imprisonment.
He claims on appeal, as he did below, that two confessions the State claims he made should not have been received in evidence because the State did not meet its burden of proving the chain of police custody prior to the making of the confessions and because the confessions were induced by promises and threats.
The prosecution proved the corpus delicti in each case by the testimony of the victim and then implicated the appellant solely by his confessions. Sergeant Tabeling, the only police witness, testified that Streams was arrested, without a warrant, at his home just after midnight on Wednesday, February 26, 1964, by Officer Vernon Barclay, taken to Central Police Station and put in a cell, where he remained until eight-forty a. m. when the interrogation began. It continued with interruptions until after four that afternoon, when Streams gave a confession which was reduced to writing and signed by him. On Friday, February 28, Streams made another confession, which he also signed. Sergeant Tabeling said he himself did all the interrogating both on Wednesday and Friday, and that there was no mistreatment of Streams, and that he was not in any way threatened or induced in the obtention of the confessions.
Thereafter Streams, testifying as to the confessions, stated the following: that he was eighteen years old, had gone to the eighth grade in school, but could not read and could write only his name; that three police officers came to his home on Tuesday night while he was in bed and informed him they wanted to question him and were going to take him to the station house and bring him back after he had answered the questions; and one of the officers questioned him during the drive to the police station.
He then testified that the next morning, and also on Friday, Officer Butler questioned him, as well as Sergeant Tabeling, who was present when Officer Butler did his questioning. Streams says he was told it would be better for him if he made a statement because if he did they would try to get him put on probation. He then says Officer Butler told him if he did not sign a statement '* * * he'd throw the book at me, get me more time, that's all.'
Neither Officer Butler nor Officer Barclay, an arresting officer who was in court, nor any other witness was called in rebuttal by the State.
We think the State did not meet its burden of showing that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made and were not products of promises or threats. Sergeant Tabeling's testimony that during all of the interrogations he and Officer Butler were the only officers present and that neither he nor anyone in his presence made any threats or promises to get Streams to give any information, and similarly no immunity or inducements were offered or held out to him, might have been enough if there were no later uncontradicted contentions to the contrary, and if Streams had not admittedly been in the custody of other officers who, he says, made statements to him and questioned him. We do not agree with the appellant's contention that each person who has casual contact with the accused while he is detained by the police or who is present during the interrogations that lead to a confession must testify as to its voluntariness in order for the State to meet its burden. Bagley v. State, 232 Md. 86, 192 A.2d 53; Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 164 A.2d 461; Glover v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...it would have been inadmissible. Id. at 6, 22 A.2d 455. Other cases applying the Maryland inducement rule include Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278, 208 A.2d 614 (1965) (police promised to try to get the defendant placed on probation if he talked, but otherwise would "throw the book" at him and......
-
Boone v. State
...counsel for Appellant (citing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278, 208 A.2d 614 (1965), and Thiess v. State, 235 Md. 541, 201 A.2d 790 (1964)) contended that since neither Sgt. Watkins nor the turnkey had been call......
-
Johnson v. State
...given. See, e. g., Gill v. State, 265 Md. 350, 289 A.2d 575 (1972); Price v. State, 261 Md. 573, 277 A.2d 256 (1971); Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278, 208 A.2d 614 (1965); Bean v. State, 234 Md. 432, 199 A.2d 773 It is particularly unfortunate that the Court has chosen the instant case to ove......
-
Lincoln v. State
..."go to bat for" him with the prosecutor was an improper promise that rendered the suspect's statement involuntary); Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278, 281, 208 A.2d 614 (1965)(holding that statement by interrogating officer that if suspect made a statement "they would try to get [him] put on pr......
-
Maryland Common Law Promises Or Inducements
...truth about your involvement in the occurrence, I will go to bat for you," was an improper promise. 286 Md. at 153. In Streams v. State, 238 Md. 278 (1965), the Court of Appeals held that it was an improper inducement to tell the defendant that the officer would try to obtain probation if h......