Yurcovic v. State

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Wells, C.J.
• Docket Number: 2138-2024
• Decision Date: 20 January 2026
• Citation: Yurcovic v. State, 2138-2024 (Md. App. Jan 20, 2026)
• Parties: WAYNE DONALD YURCOVIC, II v. STATE OF MARYLAND

1

WAYNE DONALD YURCOVIC, II v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2138-2024

Appellate Court of Maryland

January 20, 2026

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. C-07-CR-23-000365

Wells C.J., Leahy, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Wells C.J.

A jury empaneled in the Circuit Court for Cecil County convicted appellant Wayne Yurcovic of over a dozen charges related to an armed robbery, including use of a firearm in commission of a crime of violence and unlawful possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The court sentenced him to a total of 27 years in prison.

Yurcovic filed a timely appeal and poses three questions which we restate verbatim:

1. Did the pre-trial hearing court err by denying the motion to suppress Mr. Yurcovic's statement to police?

2. Did the trial court err or abuse discretion by ruling portions of recorded telephone calls admissible into evidence?

3. Is the evidence legally insufficient to sustain Mr. Yurcovic's convictions?

We answer the first question in the affirmative. The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission of Yurcovic's post-invocation statements was erroneous and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the case is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Because the issue of the admissibility of the jail calls will likely reoccur on remand, we address that issue herein and hold the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the challenged jail calls. Finally, we hold the evidence was sufficient to support Yurcovic's convictions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2022, at approximately 12:46 a.m., a masked individual armed with a handgun entered the Royal Farms store in Cecilton and robbed two employees at gunpoint. The robber wore clothing that covered his entire body except for a small slit across his eyes, making visual identification impossible. The robber took approximately $183 from the register and fled on foot.

Police recovered surveillance footage showing the robbery but were initially unable to identify the perpetrator. The case remained unsolved for several months until police discovered a black handgun in the woods near the Royal Farms. Forensic analysis revealed DNA on the weapon belonging to Aaron Swope, who had died on October 17, 2022-ten days before the robbery. This discovery eventually led investigators to Yurcovic, a friend of Swope.

A. The Police Interview and Miranda Violation

On February 2, 2023, Maryland State Police Master Trooper Kelly Jaskiewicz interviewed Yurcovic at the Maryland State Police Barrack in North East. The interview was recorded. Master Trooper Jaskiewicz began by advising Yurcovic of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). When presented with the written Miranda form, Yurcovic responded, "I ain't going to talk," shook his head, and pushed the form away.

Despite this invocation of his right to remain silent, Master Trooper Jaskiewicz continued speaking to Yurcovic. She told him: "Okay. No problem. So you will be seen on your warrant. I don't know what else to say to you. The funny thing is, people are willing to throw you underneath the bus so you've definitely pissed off some people."

Master Trooper Jaskiewicz then engaged in a nearly three-minute monologue, discussing various matters including people forcing entry into Yurcovic's hotel room and stealing money, a dispute with "John John" about money, something about "dope" that "Hannah's dad" provided, and a general comment that "for whatever reason, people want to hurt you." When Yurcovic sought more information about these allegations, the Trooper responded that she was "not allowed to ask [him] questions if [he] [didn't] want waive [his] [rights]."

Yurcovic then signed the Miranda waiver form, explaining: "I just don't understand what's going on right now. That's the only reason why I'm doing this." The interrogation continued, during which Yurcovic made several statements that he later moved to suppress.

At the suppression hearing, Master Trooper Jaskiewicz testified that she continued talking to Yurcovic after his invocation because she was trying to "build a rapport" with him, noting "[t]ypically if we build a rapport, they're more likely to speak with us." The motions court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Yurcovic "was not subjected to further questioning or further interrogation" after he initially declined to waive his rights.

B. The Jail Calls

While detained pending trial, Yurcovic made numerous recorded telephone calls from the detention center. The State sought to introduce portions of six calls at trial. Three of these calls are at issue in this appeal:

Call 1 (State's Exhibit 37): Yurcovic told his girlfriend that the police told him Aaron Swope "was dead for the one in Cecilton." Yurcovic's girlfriend suggested it was fortunate Swope was the same height as Yurcovic, and Yurcovic responded by noting Swope was dead at the time of the robbery.

Call 2 (State's Exhibit 38): Yurcovic explained to the other party, "I signed a waiver; I just wanted to know what they had on me."

Call 3 (State's Exhibit 40): When the other party suggested Yurcovic would have had to shoot the gun to get his DNA on it, Yurcovic responded that the gun had "never been shot."

Before trial, the court held a hearing on the admissibility of the jail calls. Defense counsel raised objections based on relevance and unfair prejudice under Maryland Rule 5403 but did not challenge the calls on hearsay grounds or under Maryland Rule 5-404(b) (other crimes evidence). Regarding Call 2 (about signing the waiver), defense counsel explicitly stated he did not object to its admission, acknowledging it was relevant to the voluntariness of Yurcovic's interview.

C. The Trial Evidence

The State's case at trial was entirely circumstantial. No eyewitness could identify Yurcovic as the robber, and his DNA was not found on the recovered handgun-only Swope's DNA was present. The State presented the following evidence connecting Yurcovic to the crime:

Physical Similarities: Defense counsel conceded Yurcovic fit the general "physique" of the person shown in the surveillance video. Yurcovic had extensive tattoos covering his arms, hands, and face, which could explain why the robber took such care to conceal his entire body.

Distinctive Shoes: The robber wore distinctive shoes visible in the surveillance footage. Police showed Yurcovic a photograph from a phone "linked to" Yurcovic's Facebook account depicting someone wearing similar shoes next to Yurcovic's cat. Although Yurcovic initially denied owning the shoes, he later complained in a jail call that the detective "is showing me pictures of shit off people's phones with my shoes on."

Connection to the Weapon: Yurcovic admitted he was "good friends" with Swope, whose DNA was on the recovered handgun. Yurcovic acknowledged a photograph of the recovered gun was "definitely" the same gun Swope had tried to sell to him. In the jail call, Yurcovic's statement that the gun had "never been shot" suggested familiarity with the weapon beyond a single interaction.

Financial Motive: Yurcovic told Master Trooper Jaskiewicz he did not have $200 to buy the gun from Swope. In a jail call, he asked his ex-wife: "Why'd you have to call me and tell me that you needed 500 dollars? Why did you have to do that? God, why did you have to do that to me?" This suggested financial desperation.

Elimination of Alternative Suspect: The only other person connected to the weapon-Aaron Swope-had died ten days before the robbery, eliminating him as a potential perpetrator.

The jury convicted Yurcovic on all counts. After sentencing, this timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Yurcovic's Post-Invocation Statements Violated Miranda.

A. Parties' Contentions

Yurcovic first contends the motions court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police after he unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent. The State concedes error, and we agree the admission of these statements violated Yurcovic's Fifth Amendment rights as interpreted in Miranda and its progeny.

B. Standard of Review

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider only the record of the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party-here, the State. State v. Wallace, 372 Md. 137, 144 (2002). We defer to the suppression court's factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous. Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 (2007). Whether a statement was obtained in violation of Miranda is a question of law that we review de novo. Madrid v. State, 474 Md. 273, 309 (2021).

C. Legal Framework

Under Miranda, "an individual in police custody must be warned, prior to any interrogation, that he has the right to remain silent[.]" Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 528 (2001). This prophylactic rule addresses the "inherently compelling" pressures of custodial interrogation, which "work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467.

"An accused may invoke his or her rights at any time during questioning, or simply refuse to answer any question asked and this silence cannot be used against him or her." Crosby, 366 Md. at 529. "If the individual invokes his right to remain silent, the questioning must cease." Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 470 (2015). "Any and all requests by the person being questioned to exercise his or her Miranda right to silence must be 'scrupulously honored' by police and have the effect of 'cut[ting] off questioning.'" Williams v. State, 219 Md.App. 295, 316 (2014) (quoting ...