White v. State
| Decision Date | 27 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2292,2292 |
| Parties | CRAIG WHITE v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Howard County
Case No. 13-K-16-057110
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Meredith, 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.
A jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County found Craig Dennis White, appellant, guilty of killing his parents, Glenn and Linda White. After the jury found that appellant was criminally responsible at the time of the killings, the court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences without parole. This appeal followed.
Appellant presents three questions, which we have reordered:
We answer "no" to question 1, and "yes" to questions 2 and 3. We shall vacate the judgments of the circuit court, and remand the case for a new trial.
The evidence in this case revealed the following. On the afternoon of September 1, 2016, a Howard County attorney who was representing appellant in connection with a charge of rape called 911 and asked that police conduct a welfare check on the White family. The attorney explained that she was concerned because appellant's parents had failed to show up for a meeting she had arranged with Howard County police at the parents' insistence. The attorney was concerned that she had been unable to contact the Whites for three days.
In response to the attorney's 911 call, Pfc. Christopher Cromwell, of the Howard County Police Department, was dispatched to the Whites' residence, and he arrived on the scene at around 6 p.m. Pfc. Cromwell saw two cars in the driveway, but no one responded to his knocks on the front door. He then walked around the exterior of the house and discovered that a sliding glass door at the rear of the house was closed but unlocked. Pfc. Cromwell called for backup and waited by the door until two additional police officers, Cpl. Laura Wilson and Pfc. Markley, arrived. After announcing themselves as Howard County police and receiving no response, the three officers entered the house together. Pfc. Cromwell went into the basement while Cpl. Wilson and Pfc. Markley explored the main level of the house.
Cpl. Wilson testified that, when she arrived on the scene, she observed two cars in the driveway and confirmed that their hoods were cold to the touch. As soon as she entered the house, she could smell a lemon-scented cleaning product, and she observed a bottle of lemon-scented cleaner in the middle of the kitchen floor. She and Pfc. Markley searched the upstairs to see if there was anyone in the house who needed help. Cpl. Wilson testified that she could smell blood as soon as she entered the upstairs hallway. She discovered the deceased body of Glenn White, appellant's father, in his bedroom. There was a "significant amount of blood" in the bedroom where Glenn White's body was found, and in the nearby bathroom.
In a room at the bottom of the stairs on the basement level—later identified as appellant's bedroom—Pfc. Cromwell discovered the deceased body of Linda White, appellant's mother.
According to Dr. Carol Allan, the assistant medical examiner who oversaw the autopsies of the Whites, Glenn White had received a total of seventy-four sharp-force injuries to his head and neck, and he bled to death on his bedroom floor after being attacked while sleeping in his bed. Linda White had been strangled and stabbed to death in appellant's bedroom.
Based on the 911 call, police understood that three people resided in the Whites' home, and they began looking for appellant. They located him about 9:35 p.m., and he was arrested without incident at a Wendy's drive-through in Columbia. His DNA was found in numerous locations throughout the crime scene. He was charged with the first-degree murder of his parents.
Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress the evidence discovered pursuant to the warrantless entry into the house. This motion was denied, and is the subject of the first issue on appeal.
Appellant's second issue on appeal is his contention that the court committed reversible error in failing to comply with Rule 4-215(e) when appellant requested a postponement to hire private counsel. The State points out that appellant did not express a request to discharge his attorneys. But his attorneys did apprise the court that he hadexpressed a desire to engage private counsel, and the court did not permit appellant to explain his reasons for wanting different counsel.
Finally, appellant complains that his objection to a comment made by the prosecutor during the State's closing argument regarding his failure to testify should have been sustained.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his pretrial motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the police officers' warrantless entry into his parents' house on September 1, 2016. When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the record made at the suppression hearing, viewing the facts found therein in the light most favorable to the State, and giving "great deference to the suppression judge" with regard to the court's factual findings. Brewer v. State, 220 Md. App. 89, 99 (2014). We apply a de novo standard of review to legal conclusions, making our "own independent constitutional appraisal by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the case." Id. ().
Pfc. Cromwell described his arrival on scene, his search of the perimeter of the house, and his discovery of an "unsecured door" at the rear of the house. He said he did not enter the house until backup officers, Cpl. Wilson and Pfc. Markley, arrived. Cpl. Wilson testified that, when she arrived, she saw two cars in the driveway and discovered that their hoods were cold. She noticed a Terminix receipt stuck in the front door, indicating that a Terminix representative had been at the house at 2:14 p.m. that day. She and Pfc. Markley then joined Pfc. Cromwell on the back deck, and together they entered through the unlocked sliding glass door. She testified that her purpose in entering the house was "[t]o check on the subjects inside" in response to their attorney's call for a welfare check.
Cpl. Wilson also testified that, on the evening of September 1, 2016, after police had put up crime-scene tape, The couple stated that the senior Whites gave dance lessons in their home. They provided the police contact information for the elder Whites.
The 911 call requesting a welfare check on the White family was entered into evidence as State's Exhibit C at the suppression hearing. The caller identified herself as Debra Saltz, "their attorney." Ms. Saltz explained that she was "concerned" about theWhite family because they failed to show up for a meeting that she had set up at their insistence at the Northern District police station in regard to a rape investigation. Ms. Saltz indicated that she had not heard from any of the Whites in a few days, which caused her concern because all three of the Whites had been "really pushing for this meeting," and had been "calling and calling me," yet had failed to appear at the meeting. None of the Whites had responded to any of her calls or emails.
Appellant argued that an attorney calling about a missed appointment did not rise to a level, under any theory, that would excuse a warrantless entry into his residence. The State argued that the officers' warrantless entry was permitted pursuant to the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, and also because exigent circumstances justified the entry. In its ruling denying the motion to suppress, the court explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial