Bork v. State

PkR Curiam. Norman Bork, the appellant, was tried in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Judge Ralph W. Powers presiding with a jury, and convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction for ten years. Bork contends that the trial court erred in admitting statements acquired in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , and in admitting evidence concerning an extrajudicial lineup.

As to the first contention the record shows that after the defense had completed its case, the State put on rebuttal witnesses, primarily to rebut the sanity issue raised by Bork. Detective Frederick W. Whalen, a rebuttal witness for the State, testified on direct examination that he advised Bork of his constitutional rights, 1 and Bork elected not to make a statement until he had contacted an attorney. Whalen was then asked: “Q. Did you ask him questions or did you have any conversation with him ? “A. I asked him questions on a prescribed form. No, sir, I did not.

We did not have a form at the time. I advised him of his rights verbally. The only statement made to me, he said that he had been hitchhiking and didn’t know the other subject in the vehicle and the reason he had ran, this other person had told him to.” There was no objection below to the question; there was no motion to strike out the answer; substantially the same state ⁴⁰⁶ ment had been given to two other police officers previously and there was no objection to the questions or to the answers when the statements were entered in evidence. In Gaudio and Bucci v. State, 1 Md. App. 455, 463 , 230 A. 2d 700, 705 , we stated that “When a confession is admitted without objection, an objection cannot be made for the