Ware v. State, 1178
| Decision Date | 24 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1178,1178 |
| Parties | DION WARE v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED
Eyler, Deborah S., Leahy, Davis, Arrie W. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Leahy, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Kearri Ware was only six weeks old when he died. The father of Kearri, Dion Ware ("Appellant"), was charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with second degree murder and first-degree child abuse. A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree child abuse, but was unable to reach a verdict on the second-degree murder charge. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years in prison.1 Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:
We affirm. We are persuaded that Appellant's mental capacity did not prevent him from making a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly considered the record testimony and, based on its factual findings, properly denied Appellant's motion to suppress. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse it discretion in admitting the photographs at issue after determining that the probative value of the photographs was not outweighed by the potential for improper prejudice. Finally, because the instruction given before the motion for mistrial accurately stated the law as well as the fact that there were no objections to the instructions that wereread to the jury by the court, we hold that the trial court properly denied the motion for mistrial.
Kearri was born on October 9, 2012. Approximately six weeks later, on the afternoon of November 26, 2012, Kearri died at his parents' shared residence in Baltimore City, Maryland, after he was in the Appellant's sole custody and care. During Appellant's trial, the jury learned details concerning this tragedy from two recorded statements Appellant gave just hours after Kearri's death to Baltimore City Police Detectives.
Appellant challenges the circuit court's decision to deny his pre-trial motion to suppress his statements on two grounds. First, Appellant contends that his limited cognitive abilities precluded a valid Miranda waiver. Second, Appellant claims that his statements were not voluntary because they were induced by an improper promise by police that he would be able to go home if he answered their questions.2 Before we addressAppellant's contentions, we review the evidence presented to the court during the pre-trial motions hearing held over two days—April 7 and 8, 2014.
Detective Chris Kazmarek, the primary investigator in this case, testified that he and his partner, Detective Brian Lewis, first spoke with Appellant on November 26, 2012, at around 4:15 p.m., at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Appellant's six-week-old son, Kearri Ware, was pronounced dead little more than an hour before. Det. Kazmarek testified that Appellant told him that he was home alone with Kearri when he died, and that Kearri's mother arrived home shortly before medics arrived at the scene. According to Det. Kazmarek, Appellant appeared "shaken up" at the hospital, but he was not crying or displaying any unusual behavior at that time.
Det. Kazmarek told Appellant that he wanted to talk to him about his son's death. Appellant was then transported to the police station at around 5:10 p.m. After his arrival, Appellant was able to use the bathroom and get a drink of water before he went into an interview room where Detective Delasandro collected general information, including Appellant's name and address. Meanwhile, Det. Kazmarek remained at the hospital until he could speak with the medical examiner about the baby's death. Right after that, Det. Kazmarek went to Appellant's residence to execute a search warrant and then returned to the police station.
At around 10:50 p.m., Det. Kazmarek and Detective Brian Lewis went to the interview room where Appellant was being detained. They woke Appellant andreintroduced themselves. Det. Kazmarek advised Appellant of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Det. Kazmarek testified that he did not notice anything unusual about Appellant's comprehension or his behavior at this time. Appellant told the detectives that he understood and could read and write the English language, and that he was able to read and understand all of the rights listed on the advice of rights form they presented him. Det. Kazmarek made sure that Appellant read each right aloud and then Appellant initialed each right after signing the bottom of the advice of rights form. Det. Kazmarek explained that he normally had individuals read the Miranda rights aloud so that he knew that they could read. He also would ask if they understood those rights, and if they did not, he would help them. After going through the form and waiving his rights, Appellant agreed to speak with the police.
The initial conversation between Appellant and the detectives was unrecorded, but Det. Lewis took notes. Appellant informed them that, on the morning of Kearri's death, the mother, Markell Johnson, and two other children left the house, leaving Appellant alone with the infant. He and Kearri slept in bed for awhile, and then Appellant placed Kearri in a Pack-N-Play portable crib, located at the foot of the bed. Appellant fed Kearri around noon, and the two of them remained inside the house until the mother returned later that afternoon. After the mother returned, seemingly upset about something, Appellant left her in the kitchen and went to check on Kearri. Upon entering the bedroom, Appellant realized the baby was not breathing. Appellant attempted to resuscitate the baby, but he was unsuccessful. Then, because there was no phone inside the house, Appellant took the baby outside and, at approximately 2:12 p.m., a bystander called 911.
After Appellant completed his narrative about these events, Det. Kazmarek asked Appellant about bruises that were found on the baby, and Appellant explained that they must have been caused when he was placing Kearri inside the Pack-N-Play. According to Appellant, Kearri had fallen out of his arms and struck the side of the Pac-N-Play before he landed on the floor. Det. Kazmarek then asked if Appellant would agree to make a taped statement, and Appellant agreed. Appellant was given another break, and then gave a statement, that was recorded beginning at around 12:30 a.m. That statement was played for the court during the motions hearing and began as follows:3
Appellant agreed that he had been "treated fairly," that he had been given food, water, and cigarettes, that he had been taken to the bathroom, and had a chance to sleep, and that he had not been beaten or threatened. Appellant also agreed that he had read and understood the advice of rights form, that his signature did appear on that form, and that no one forced him to initial or sign that form. Appellant then described what happened to his infant son earlier that day:
To continue reading
Request your trial