Bryant v. State

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Nathaniel S. Bryant, was indicted and tried ⁵³⁴ in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on four counts for violation of Code (1957), Article 27, §§ 277 and 300 (Narcotic Drugs). Count 1 alleged unlawful possession of heroin; count 2, unlawful control of the same narcotic drug (both counts 1 and 2 being in violation of § 277); count 3, second offender, encompassing count 1 and a prior conviction for having a syringe and needle for narcotics use, under § 300; and count 4, a second offender count encompassing count 2 and the same prior conviction. He pleaded not guilty and was tried by the court, sitting without a jury, was granted a verdict of not guilty as to count 1, but found guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4 and given a general sentence of ten years in the Maryland House of Correction, from which he appeals.

On October 30, 1961, police officers, acting on information received by them, met the appellant, who was suspected of being in possession of narcotics, as he arrived from New York at the Baltimore Greyhound bus terminal. They accosted and asked the appellant and a codefendant, Rice, who was also on the bus, to go to a baggage room for questioning as to possible violation of the narcotics law. One of the officers saw Rice throw away a package, later found to contain several “decks” of heroin. Both men were arrested and taken to the police station for interrogation, where appellant made and signed a confession.

The confession included a detailed narrative, including dates and times, of how the appellant purchased the heroin. It also included exact addresses and narrated how he got Rice, a total stranger prior to this time, to carry the narcotics off the bus for the appellant. He was informed of his rights not to confess, that any confession, if made by him, could be used for or against him in court, and that it must be free and voluntary. The testimony of the investigating officer and of appellant himself indicates that appellant had used some of the “decks” some time between five and fifteen hours prior to his interrogation.

The officer, experienced in narcotics work, testified that he appeared very normal. The appellant testified he was under the influence of narcotics at that time. On this appeal the appellant makes three contentions: 1, the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof by establishing the voluntariness of the confession; 2, the indictment is defec ⁵³⁵ tive and constitutionally invalid because the word control is conclusionary pleading and fails to apprise the defendant of the nature and extent of the crime for which he has been indicted; and 3, the verdict of guilty on the third count is erroneous, since the defendant was found not guilty of the first count and both eounts are the same, except for collateral allegations of prior offenses contained in the third. Regarding his first contention, it is well established in this state that in order for a confession to be admitted into evidence against the accused the State must prove that it was voluntary and not a product of force or threats, and not the result of any promises whereby the accused might be led to believe that there might be a partial or total abandonment of prosecution.

Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 559 , 168 A. 2d 510 , and cases therein cited. Whether the confession was voluntarily and freely made, and therefore admissible, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Ford v. State, 181 Md. 303 , 29 A. 2d 833 . The determination of the admissibility is left largely to the trial court, and it will not be disturbed on appeal unless there was a manifest abuse of discretion.

Ralph v. State, 226 Md. 480 , 174 A. 2d 163 ; Grammer v. State, 203 Md. 200 , 100 A. 2d 257 , cert. den. 347 U. S. 938 , 74 S. Ct. 634 , 98 L. Ed. 1088 . The burden rested upon the State to show that the confession was voluntarily given by the accused. Kier v. State, 213 Md. 556 , 132 A. 2d 494 . On direct examination the investigating officer testified that the appellant voluntarily gave his confession.

On cross examination and under questioning by the court this witness testified that appellant had probably taken heroin within several hours prior to the confession and was probably under its influence, but appeared normal in all respects, responding coherently to questioning, including many answers involving details as to dates and times. The appellant’s counsel did elicit from the witness the fact that the appellant was probably under the influence of narcotics at the time of the confession, but this does not of itself make the