Sturgis v. State

Decision Date25 June 1964
Docket NumberNo. 385,385
Citation201 A.2d 681,235 Md. 343
PartiesEdward M. STURGIS v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Henry F. Lankford, Snow Hill, for appellant.

John W. Sause, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and W. Ross Hockersmith, State's Atty. for Worcester County, Snow Hill, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

The appellant and Paul Pettigrew were jointly indicted for the murder of Daniel Massey in Worcester County. Pettigrew pleaded guilty. The appellant pleaded not guilty, elected trial by jury, and was found guilty of murder in the first degree without capital punishment. Two statements made by the accused were put in evidence, the second constituting a confession, and the propriety of its admission constitutes the first question raised here.

On March 5, 1963, Massey, 81 years of age was found beaten but still alive in the secluded trailer where he lived alone. His wallet was missing although it had been in his possession the night before. On March 6, the appellant was interrogated but denied all knowledge of the crime. On March 8, he was arrested at his home. He gave a statement admitting he had driven the codefendant Pettigrew to the vicinity of the Massey trailer, but denied any knowledge of the assault and robbery at that time. When the State undertook to establish the legality of the arrest by testimony showing probable cause, counsel for the accused conceded that the arrest was legal, and that this statement was voluntary. Sturgis was placed in a cell where he remained over the weekend. On March 11, he was taken to the place where some papers belonging to Massey had been found. One of the deputies testified that Sturgis then said he would like to change his statement. He made certain verbal admissions, but a second written statement was not taken until the following day, at about 2:30 P.M. The interrogation lasted from a half hour to an hour. On the following day, Massey died. Sturgis was taken to Salisbury and given a lie detector test at his own request.

At the trial nine witnesses placed Sturgis or his automobile in the vicinity of the crime on March 5, between 5:30 and 8 A.M., a fact he admitted at the trial. Pettigrew, the accomplice, testified for the State that the plan to rob Massey had been conceived by the appellant, that the appellant drove him to the scene, picked him up afterwards, and they divided the loot.

The appellant contends that the confession contained in the second statement offered in evidence was involuntary because the accused had been confined in jail four days without a hearing and without the services of counsel. It is not contended that any force or coercion was employed by the police, or that any promises were made or inducements offered, except 'they told me they'd carry me to the lie detector,' and that they did. Sturgis testified at one point that Sheriff Tyler 'started raising his voice a little bit,' and 'I didn't want him to get to hollering at me * * *.' Sheriff Tyler emphatically denied that he raised his voice or 'hollered at' the accused, whom he had known in a friendly way for thirteen years. Nor is there anything in the so-called 'totality of events' surrounding his incarceration and questioning to indicate coercion or inducement. Upon his own testimony he did not see the interrogating officers for more than an hour. He had not been questioned during his four days in jail. As a matter of fact, Sturgis knew that Pettigrew had implicated him, that the victim was still alive, and that he had been identified as being at the scene of the crime.

Few cases in this Court, or in the Federal courts, which have come to our attention, are so barren of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Tichnell v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1982
    ...affidavit was never presented to the trial court; therefore, it is not before this Court for consideration. See Sturgis v. State, 235 Md. 343, 346, 201 A.2d 681, 682 (1964); Maryland Rule 885.2 The provision is made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth A......
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, 14833
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 20, 1965
    ...of Illinois, People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33 (1964), cert. denied, 85 S.Ct. 1104 (1965); Maryland, Sturgis v. State, 235 Md. 343, 201 A.2d 681 (1964),6 and New Jersey, State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448 (1964),7 have, however, held that a request is necessa......
  • Neuenfeldt v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1965
    ...People v. Hartgraves (1964), 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 1104, 14 L.Ed.2d 152; Sturgis v. State (1964), 235 Md. 343, 201 A.2d 681; State v. Scanlon (1964), 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448; People v. Gunner (1965), 15 N.Y.2d 226, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, 205 N......
  • State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1965
    ...See, Myrick v. State (1965) (Fla.App.) 177 So.2d 845.20 See, People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33.21 See, Sturgis v. State, 235 Md. 343, 201 A.2d 681.22 See, Bean v. State, Nev., 398 P.2d 251.23 See, State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448; State v. Vigliano, 43 N.J.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT