Campbell v. State

Per Curiam. Appellant Campbell was convicted of armed robbery by the ⁴⁴⁹ court sitting without a jury and sentenced to ten years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. He contends on this appeal that an oral incriminatory statement made by him shortly after his arrest was introduced in evidence at his trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , and constituted reversible error. The pertinent facts are these: Appellant was arrested immediately following the robbery of an ice cream store by a police officer who had observed the crime in commission.

The arresting officer told appellant that he “had a right to remain silent and didn’t have to say anything until [he] obtained counsel.” Within minutes after the arrest, and while appellant was still on the street, Sergeant Raymond Donovan of the Baltimore County Police arrived on the scene and undertook to give appellant the fourfold warning required by the Miranda decision. While he was placing appellant into his police vehicle, appellant asked “How much time can I get for this,” to which the Sergeant responded, “For what,” following which appellant said “For robbing that lady in the store.” At the trial, appellant’s incriminating statement was admitted into evidence over his objection. Appellant contends that his rights under Miranda were violated in that he was not given the requisite warnings, and that in any event