Ayala v. State

⁶⁵¹ DAVIS, J. A jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County convicted Mario Ayala (Ayala), the appellant, of first-degree murder. The court sentenced Ayala to life in prison and he filed this appeal. ISSUES Ayala presents the following arguments for this Court’s review: I. The trial court erred in allowing the State to present irrelevant, incompetent, and inflammatory gang evidence.

II

The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress Mr. Ayala’s statements to the police.

III

The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to consider Mr. Ayala’s mens rea separately from that of the other participants in the crime.

IV

The trial court erred in admitting prejudicial photographs. Finding no merit in any of these arguments, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court. FACTUAL SUMMATION Ayala’s conviction stems from the beating death of Ashley Antonio Urias, a 38-year old father of three who resided in Silver Spring, Maryland. At trial, the State established that Ayala and two other young men — Ayala’s cousin, Alexis Ayala, and their friend, Everec Alvarez Chacon — befriended Urias on May 24, 2004, then drove him to a cemetery in Chacon’s pickup truck for what was to be a night of drinking.

Two baseball bats and a golf club were stowed in the truck. At the cemetery, Chacon and Alexis Ayala beat Urias with the baseball bats. Mario Ayala struck Urias several times with the golf club. The State presented evidence that Ayala and his two accomplices were members of “MS-13,” a violent Latino gang.

The State theorized that the three men killed Urias because they ⁶⁵² believed — possibly mistakenly — that he was a member of a rival gang known as the “18th Street gang.” 1 Ayala did not dispute that he participated in the killing. The defense argued that one of Ayala’s pre-trial statements indicated that Urias had taken one of the bats from Chacon’s pick-up truck and was the aggressor in the fight, and that the accomplices wrestled the bat from him and retrieved the other bat and the golf club from the truck. The defense contended that the golf club had then been dropped on the ground, and that Ayala picked it up and used it in self defense or defense of others. The defense also contended that Ayala was intimidated by the other two members of the gang and believed he would face retaliation if he did not assist them in the beating.

Additional facts will be provided, infra, as warranted. DISCUSSION I Admissibility of Gang Evidence —Trial Court’s Rulings— Prior to trial, the defense moved in limine to bar any evidence regarding the MS-13 gang and Ayala’s membership therein. Defense counsel argued, in essence, that evidence regarding the gang would amount to evidence of bad character or prior bad acts, and would serve “no real purpose other than to prejudice Mr. Ayala.” Counsel reasoned: Because [the] probative value is questionable at best and the prejudicial impact would be high and extremely unfair, the evidence, anything to do with MS-13 whether it’s expert testimony, pictures of tattoos, clothing, spoken references ⁶⁵³ by witnesses, anything that has to do with gang membership or the term MS-13, specifically should be excluded from being presented at trial. The trial court disagreed and stated: I’m going to deny the motion in liminef.] [I]f you weigh the imbalance of probative value versus the prejudice^] ...

I think it has significant probative value. I appreciate th[at] motive is not an element of the crime[,] ... [but] certainly motivation is a significant part of the State’s case. And to bar that evidence would be unfair. Accordingly, having said that[,] the motion in limine [is denied]....

At trial, the court granted defense counsel’s continuing objection to evidence regarding gang membership but reiterated: I think that the gang evidence has probative value beyond the prejudice because it goes to the theory of the State’s case as to motive. I appreciate that motive is not an element of the crime, but certainly the absence or presence of motive is a factor for the jury to consider. I think the State is entitled to prove their case---- —Presentation of Gang Evidence— Thereafter, over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court permitted the State to introduce evidence as to the contents of two pre-trial statements made by Ayala. Detective Felipe Ordono, a member of the Prince George’s County Police Department’s Regional Gang Unit, testified that, in Ayala’s first statement, he admitted that he was a member of the MS-13 gang and indicated that Alexis Ayala and Chacon were members of the gang as well.

Detective Gregory McDonald of the Prince George’s County Police Department, who was the lead investigator in the Urias case, testified that, in the second statement, Ayala revealed that Urias had told the three men that he was a member of the 18th Street gang. A video recording was made of the second statement, and portions of the video recording were played and interpreted for ⁶⁵⁴ the jury. 2 In one portion, Ayala stated that he had been beaten by a member of the 18th Street gang and still had a cut on his forehead from the beating. Also over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court accepted Detective Michael Porter of the Fairfax County, Virginia Police Department’s Gang Investigation Unit “as an expert in the area on MS-13.” Detective Porter related the history and customs of the MS-13 gang. The detective stated that “MS” stands for “Mara-Salvatrucha.” He explained, “Mara, I understand, refers to gang or gangs.

Salvatrucha I have been told means anything from [ (1) ] here we come, [ (2) ] a river, [ (3) ] a slippery trout, and so forth.” The detective added that the gang originated in Los Angeles, where Latino gangs “fall under the Mexican Mafia prison gang when they go to the penitentiaries.” He explained that the number 13 was added to the name of the gang because “the 13th letter of the Alphabet [is] M standing for Mexican Mafia.” Detective Porter testified that MS-13 has many subgroups, or “cliques,” throughout the United States and other countries, including “SLSW” — or “Sailors Loco Salvatrucha Western” — which is active in the “Maryland, D.C., and Virginia” areas. According to the detective, “MS-13 is the header gang and below that are the cliques. In order to get into MS-13, you have to become part of one of the cliques.” He explained that young men “have to be jumped into” a clique, meaning they receive “a 13-second beating from either three to five members of the gang, the clique that you want to get ... into.” The purpose of this initiation process is to ensure that the prospective member is “willing to take a beating for them and from the[m],” which purportedly establishes that the member will be “willing to put in the work when the time comes.” ⁶⁵⁵ Detective Porter explained that “the work” that members of MS-13 cliques are expected to “put in” consists of “getting at [the gang’s enemies].” The detective stated, “18th Street is the chief rival of MS-13. MS-13 members are expected to, in their words, get at members of 18th Street, get the members of 18th Street.

No questions. You see an 18th Street member, you get that 18th Street member.” Detective Porter observed that the MS-13 gang is known for employing a variety of weapons in performing this work, including “[blase-ball bats, machetes, guns, any weapon they can use.” He added, “If I am involved with a case where MS-13 is believed to have done something to an 18th Street member, that would automatically give me a motive because the rivalry between 18th Street and MS-13 is not only national but international.” According to Detective Porter, “Reputation and respect is everything. The more you are willing to do for the gang, the more respect you have within the gang.” In addition, “MS-13 disciplines their own members. For you not to backup one of your homeboys when he did something, MS-13 will punish you.” The detective observed that members of the MS-13 cliques wear, primarily, the colors blue and white, and often have the number “13” somewhere on their clothing.

They may have tattoos that signify their affiliation with the gang, although “there are members that have no tattoos.” Often, “the people that seem to have more tattoos seem to be the people that have been in longer.” In addition, having tattoos on the neck or above may signify the commission of a crime or crimes of violence. Gang members will not wear the color red as a main color of their clothing; nor will they display the numbers “8,” “18,” or “14” on their clothing or person since those colors and numbers signify membership in the 18th Street gang. MS-13 members have developed a series of hand signals with which they can secretly communicate with one another. Photographs seized from Ayala’s home were admitted into evidence through Detective McDonald, who executed the search warrant on the home.

The photographs depicted blue and white clothing with the number 13 on it, various persons, ⁶⁵⁶ including Ayala making hand signals and gang-related tattoos on various persons, including Ayala. Subsequently, the prosecutor showed the photographs to Detective Porter while he was on the stand. In response to the prosecutor’s questioning, Detective Porter expressed his opinion that Ayala was a member of MS-13. The detective acknowledged that he had reviewed the interview during which Ayala told police that the victim stated he was a member of the 18th Street gang.

The prosecutor’s subsequent questioning of the detective proceeded as follows: Q ... Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty as to what effect his membership in MS-13 would have on his interaction with a person whom he believed to be a member of the 18th Street gang, particularly if the Defendant was in the company of two other persons who were members of MS-13? A As a member of MS-13 against an 18th Street member, he could not just sit by and do nothing. For him not to become involved in itself would be a violation where he didn’t backup his homeboys, where he didn’t step up and represent MS-13.

And he would have been disciplined for it in what MS-13 refers to as court. He would have been disciplined, beaten.... The State elicited additional testimony regarding the MS-13 gang from three other witnesses. Jorge Moran, a resident of Port Washington, New York, testified that he knew Everec Alvarez Chacon when they both lived in El Salvador, before each moved to the United States.

In late May of 2004, Chacon called Moran and told him that he was in New York. Chacon, Alexis Ayala and appellant, Mario Ayala, then went to Moran’s house, and the three stayed with Moran and his family for about a week. During that time, Moran heard the men talking about “Mara Salvatrucha” and “making the hand signs.” Ultimately, Moran became disturbed by arguments between Chacon and Alexis Ayala and told all three men to leave. ⁶⁵⁷ Detective Thomas McCarthy of the Port Washington Police Department testified that he was assigned to the department’s Gang Investigation Unit. He told the court that the MS-18 gang has a clique in Port Washington and that the members congregate in a local park known as Manorhaven Park.

Detective McCarthy reported that, in late June of 2004, he was informed that there were outstanding warrants from Prince George’s County for the arrests of Ayala and Chacon. 3 The detective participated in the arrests of the two men on June 23, 2004, in Manorhaven Park. Detective McDonald, through whom the photos seized from Ayala’s home were introduced, also testified that the various subjects of the photos were indicative of gang activity. Detective McDonald stated that the photos indicated that Ayala was a member of the SLSW clique of MS-13. —Arguments on Appeal— Ayala now argues that all of the evidence regarding gang activity and membership was “irrelevant,” “incompetent,” and “extremely prejudicial,” and that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting it. His argument has two prongs.

First, Ayala asserts that the only evidence linking Urias to the 18th Street gang was Ayala’s own pre-trial statement to the police to the effect that Urias said he was a member of that gang. Ayala points out that Urias’s wife testified that she “never saw him in any gang” and that he had no gang-related tattoos of which she was aware. From this, Ayala asserts that “there was no evidence that this was a ‘gang killing,’ ” and the gang evidence, therefore, should not have been admitted. Ayala next argues that, even if the evidence suggested that the killing was gang-related, Detective Porter’s expert testimony “impermissibly invaded the province of the jury by ⁶⁵⁸ expounding upon the ultimate issue of guilt” and on Ayala’s state of mind.

Ayala adds that unduly prejudicial evidence regarding gang membership was also elicited from Jorge Moran, Detective McDonald, and Detective McCarthy. —Resolution of Arguments— A. Propriety of Admission of Gang Evidence There can be little doubt that evidence that a defendant is a member of an organization known for violent acts may be evidence of bad character or prior bad acts. See generally Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 547-49 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999) (where the Court of Appeals discussed what constitutes a bad act and commented in dicta that in some cases decided by courts of other jurisdictions “membership in a gang was considered a bad act”). Under Md. Rule 5-404(b): Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

As the Court of Appeals has explained: One of the purposes for which other crimes evidence may be admitted under Rule 5-404(b) is to prove motive. Motive is the catalyst that provides the reason for a person to engage in criminal activity____ “Like intent, motive is a mental state, the proof of which necessarily requires inferences to be drawn from conduct or extrinsic acts.” To be admissible as evidence of motive, ... the prior conduct must be “ ‘committed within such time, or show such relationship to the main charge, as to make connection obvious,’ ... that is to say they are ‘so linked in point of time or circumstances as to show intent or motive.’ ” Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580, 604-05 , 762 A.2d 125 (2000) (citations omitted). Once a trial court has determined that ⁶⁵⁹ evidence of a prior bad act has special relevancy to prove motive, and that the defendant’s involvement in the act has been established by clear and convincing evidence, the court has discretion to admit the evidence. See Streater v. State, 352 Md. 800, 807 , 724 A.2d 111 (1999).

In Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 , 112 S.Ct. 1093 , 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992), the Supreme Court determined that a murder defendant’s right to freedom of association, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was violated by the admission, at his sentencing hearing, of evidence that he was a member of a white, racist, prison gang. The Court pointed out that the State did not establish that the gang committed any unlawful or violent acts or endorsed the commission of such acts. It determined that, under the circumstances, the evidence simply was not relevant to any issue being decided at the sentencing hearing. See id. at 166 , 112 S.Ct. 1093 .

The Court commented, however, that “[a] defendant’s membership in an organization that endorses the killing of any identifiable group ... might be relevant” for certain legitimate purposes, such as establishing aggravating circumstances or showing that the defendant “represents a future danger to society.” Id. at 166 , 112 S.Ct. 1093 . As Ayala acknowledges, courts in other jurisdictions have consistently held that evidence of a defendant’s membership in a gang is admissible in the defendant’s trial for murder if the evidence is relevant to establish the defendant’s motive. See generally John E. Theuman, Admissibility of Evidence of Accused’s Membership in Gang, 39 A.L.R. 4th (1985). Ayala argues, in essence, that such gang evidence should not be admitted unless there is independent evidence linking the defendant to the gang and the crime and, thus, suggesting a gang-related motive.

Ayala cites a number of cases for this proposition, none of which purports to impose such a requirement. 4 We do not agree with Ayala that the State should be ⁶⁶⁰ prevented from presenting crucial evidence regarding motive merely because it has not had the good fortune to find a witness who is willing to step forward and suggest a connection between the gang and the crime. Two of the cases on which Ayala mistakenly relies are factually on point and persuade us that the trial court properly admitted the testimony in question. In State v. Nieto, 129 N.M. 688 , 12 P.3d 442 (2000), the defendant was convicted of four counts of murder and related offenses in the deaths of an acquaintance, the acquaintance’s girlfriend, and the girlfriend’s two young sons. At trial, the State theorized that the defendant committed the offenses with two other men.

Like Ayala, the defendant contended that he was not aware in ⁶⁶¹ advance that the crimes would be committed, and he participated only because he feared retaliation if he failed to do so. See id. at 445. In Nieto , the State contended that the defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang, and “theorized that Defendant’s actions were deliberate and motivated by his desire to accommodate” the other members of the gang. 5 Id. at 446. Over defense counsel’s objection, the prosecution called to the stand a police detective, who was accepted by the court as an expert witness on gangs. [The detective] first defined the word “gang” and listed the criteria used by his unit to identify gangs.

After identifying the 18th Street Gang as the largest gang in Albuquerque, [the detective] testified that Defendant was one of its members. [The detective] described the hierarchical structure of gangs, including the violent means of gang initiation and the procedures by which already initiated members rise in the ranks. Id. On appeal, the Nieto defendant argued that the trial court erred by permitting “expert testimony regarding gang subculture [that] contained evidence of association and bad acts.” Id. at 449. Like Ayala, the defendant posited that the testimony “constituted improper character evidence” and “was unfairly prejudicial.” Id.

In rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court of New Mexico explained: To be sure, evidence of gang affiliation could be used improperly as a backdoor means of introducing character evidence by associating the defendant with the gang and describing the gang’s bad acts ____ however, evidence of gang affiliation that might otherwise be inadmissible character evidence may be admissible to show other important elements of the crime. [The expert witness’s] testimony, ⁶⁶² both as to Defendant’s affiliation with the 18th Street Gang and the specific rituals and procedures of that gang, was admissible to show Defendant’s alleged motive (to rise up in the ranks of the gang by performing a hit on its behalf) and intent to murder the victims. Defendant also urges that evidence of Defendant’s association with 18th Street Gang, and the bad acts of that particular gang, was unfairly prejudicial. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or if it confuses the issues or misleads the jury. Here, as evidence of Defendant’s motive and intent, the testimony had considerable probative value----In light of the probative value of this testimony, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion....

Id. at 450 (citations omitted). Similarly, in People v. Davis, 335 Ill.App.3d 1 , 268 Ill.Dec. 829 , 779 N.E.2d 443 (2002), the defendant was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and a related firearm charge in connection with an attack on a group of people who were sitting on a porch. The prosecution theorized that defendant and accomplices, who were members of the same gang, opened fire on the victims, who were members of a different gang. The trial court permitted a witness who observed the shootings to testify that the perpetrators were members of the “Black P Stones” gang, and permitted a police detective to testify regarding gang structure and gang rivalries.

Id. at 456. It also admitted evidence that the defendant acknowledged prior to trial that he was a member of the gang, that the gang was at war with the “Undertaker Vice Lords” gang, and that he and his accomplices went to the scene of the crime to look for rival gang members. See id. In challenging his convictions on appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence regarding gangs was “(1) irrelevant because ‘[tjhere was never any testimony that [he] or [the murder victim] were gang members or that their connection to one another was gang related,’ and (2) ‘highly prejudicial,’ introduced ‘solely to inflame the jury and appeal to their ⁶⁶³ general bias against gang activity and the status of gang members in our society.’ ” Id. at 455.

The Appellate Court of Illinois disagreed and explained: Gang evidence is relevant when, among other things, it provides motive for an otherwise inexplicable act or corroborates a defendant’s confession. In particular, any evidence that tends to show the defendant had a motive for killing the victim is relevant because it enhances the probability that the defendant did kill the victim. Here, [the defendant] admitted a gang motive for the shooting. He said he had been a member of the Black P-Stones gang.

In his confession, [the defendant] said his gang was “at war” with the Undertaker Vice Lords. [The defendant] and his co-offenders went to 512 North Laramie on the night of the shooting to shoot at rival gang members. [The police detective’s and the lay witness’s] testimony corroborated [the defendant’s] statement regarding the gang war. Their testimony explained the gang war was over the right to sell drugs in the area where the shooting occurred. The gang testimony also showed that shootings are a common product of gang “war[s].” True, no evidence was presented showing [the murder victim] was in a gang, but that does not undermine the relevance of the gang evidence. [The defendant] said he thought his co-offenders were going to shoot at members of a rival gang. There may be strong prejudice against street gangs in the Chicago area.

This prejudice attaches to evidence of [a] defendant’s gang membership, but that alone does not render gang evidence inadmissible. Gang evidence is admissible despite the prejudice that attaches if it is relevant and particularly if it is crucial in establishing motive. Id. at 456 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). In this case, the State presented evidence, via Ayala’s pre-trial statement, that Ayala and his accomplices were members of MS-13, and that Urias told the men that he was a member of the 18th Street gang.

As in Davis , the fact that ⁶⁶⁴ Urias may not truly have been a member of the 18th Street gang did not “undermine the relevance of the gang evidence,” in that Ayala and his accomplices apparently believed that he was. See id. at 456. In his second pre-trial statement, moreover, Ayala revealed that he had once been attacked by a member of the 18th Street gang, and that he still had a scar on his forehead from the beating. As in Davis , the gang testimony presented by the State corroborated the defendant’s — in this case Ayala’s — pre-trial statement that the perpetrators and the victim were members of rival gangs.

Further, the evidence served to explain the “otherwise inexplicable,” by providing a motive for a brutal and seemingly senseless killing. Id. at 456. Detective Porter’s detailed testimony regarding the history and structure of the MS-18 gang was highly probative in that it explained the gang’s code of conduct and revealed the gang’s long and bitter rivalry with the 18th Street gang. The detective’s testimony made clear that the relationship between the two gangs was regularly punctuated by acts of extreme violence, and that such acts might be based on amorphous, perceived slights that occurred between other gang members in the distant past rather than on any concrete, identifiable disputes between the immediate parties to the acts.

In addition to showing that Ayala personally might have desired revenge for an earlier beating, the evidence indicated that Ayala, like the defendant in Nieto , may have participated in the murder in order to secure his place in the gang. See Nieto, 12 P.3d at 446 . While we establish no bright-line rule as to the admissibility of gang evidence in Maryland, we conclude that the trial court in this case properly exercised its discretion when it admitted the evidence in question. As the trial court determined, the evidence was highly probative in establishing motive and was not unduly prejudicial under the circumstances.

B. Propriety of Expert Testimony We are not persuaded by Ayala’s contention that Detective Porter expressed an opinion on Ayala’s “mental state” and, thus, invaded the province of the jury. Preliminarily, the argument is not properly before this Court. In objecting in ⁶⁶⁵ the trial court to the evidence regarding gangs and Ayala’s involvement in the MS-13 gang, defense counsel specifically argued that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value; he did not raise the argument now urged. 6 “It is well-settled that when specific grounds are given at trial for an objection, the party objecting will be held to those grounds and ordinarily waives any grounds not specified that are later raised on appeal.” Klauenberg, 355 Md. at 541, 735 A.2d 1061 . See generally Md. Rule 8—131(a).

In any event, the argument is without merit. Maryland Rule 5-704, titled “Opinion on ultimate issue,” provides in pertinent part: (a) In general. Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. (b) Opinion on mental state or condition.

An expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may not state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant had a mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged. That issue is for the trier of fact alone. Detective Porter expressed his opinion, based on the photos and articles of clothing seized from Ayala’s home, that Ayala was a member of MS-13. As Ayala points out, the prosecutor then asked the detective “what effect [ Ayala’s] membership in MS-13 would have on his interaction with a person whom he believed to be a member of the 18th Street gang, particularly if [Ayala] was in the company of two other persons who ⁶⁶⁶ were members of MS-13?” Detective Porter explained that, as a member of MS-13, Ayala would be expected to “step up and represent MS-13” and would be “disciplined, beaten” if he failed to do so.

Contrary to Ayala’s suggestion, the detective was not asked to — and did not — comment upon Ayala’s state of mind at the time of Ayala’s murder. Rather, the detective was asked to — and did — explain what action the gang’s code of conduct would have required of Ayala in any confrontation with a member of the rival gang. Detective Porter’s testimony did not touch upon whether, in the instant case, Ayala harbored the requisite intent to kill Urias. See generally Md.Code (2002), Criminal Law, § 2-201 (2002 Repl.Vol.2006 Supp.); Bryant v. State, 393 Md. 196, 215 , 900 A.2d 227 (2006) (discussing intent to kill element of first-degree murder). “A trial judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.

Such decisions ‘rarely constitute[ ] a basis for reversal.’ ” Lucas v. State, 116 Md.App. 559, 578 , 698 A.2d 1145 (1997). “ ‘Abuse of discretion may be found where the probative value of admitted testimony is outweighed by prejudice,’ ” and prejudice that would “ ‘outweigh probative value involves more than mere damage to the opponent’s case.’ ” Id. As we have explained, the probative value of Detective Porter’s expert testimony was significant. In addition, the factual basis for the detective’s opinion was strong. See, e.g., Sippio v. State, 350 Md. 633, 654-56 , 714 A.2d 864 (1998) (facts supported medical examiner’s expert opinion that victim was murdered; therefore, opinion was properly admitted into evidence).

Compare Cook v. State, 84 Md.App. 122, 142 , 578 A.2d 283 (1990) (trial court erred in permitting expert to express opinion as to defendant’s role in drug organization where facts did not provide basis for opinion). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. II Denial of Motion to Suppress Statements Ayala made two pre-trial statements to police. The first statement was made on June 23, 2004, to Detective McDonald ⁶⁶⁷ and Detective Ordono, both of whom traveled to Port Washington, New York to meet with Ayala and Chacon the day they were arrested there.

The second statement was made on July 29, 2004, to Detective McDonald and Detective Robert Turner, also of the Prince George’s County Police Department, immediately upon Ayala’s arrival at the Department’s Criminal Investigation Division on the day of his extradition. Ayala moved to suppress both statements; defense counsel argued that the statements were involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. Counsel farther argued, as to each statement, that the State failed to establish that it presented Ayala to a court commissioner promptly, if at all. Ayala reiterates those arguments on appeal to this Court.

As the Court of Appeals has summarized: On appellate review, this Court will look exclusively to the record of the suppression hearing when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Furthermore, we will accept the facts as found by the hearing judge unless those facts are clearly erroneous. In addition, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Nevertheless, we will undertake our own independent constitutional appraisal of the record by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the present case.

White v. State, 374 Md. 232, 249 , 821 A.2d 459 (2003) (citations omitted). In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress an extrajudicial statement, we are guided by the following principles: Only voluntary confessions are admissible as evidence under Maryland law. A confession is voluntary if it is “freely and voluntarily