Crawford v. State

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Lillie May Crawford died on 9 May 1978. The cause of death was “pjncised wounds of the neck and chest.” 1 The manner of death was homicide. Jeannie Yvonne Crawford, also known as Jeannie Yvonne Purnell, 2 was charged with the homicide. ⁴³³ She was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.

She appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and we ordered the issuance of a writ of certiorari on our own motion before decision by that court. The issue for decision is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain portions of taped recordings of interrogations of the accused by the police. We find that the admission was erroneous, reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial. The police conducted two custodial interrogations of the accused.

The first was shortly after her arrest on the morning the crime was committed and lasted two hours. The second, two days later, continued for about an hour and a half. The interrogations were recorded on tape, and transcriptions were made of the recordings. The accused has never claimed that the statements she made during the interrogations were involuntary in the traditional sense or obtained in violation of the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966); at the trial she expressly waived any objection on those grounds.

She filed a pretrial motion to suppress this evidence, however, which the court denied upon hearing. From the moment of her arrest the accused readily admitted that she had stabbed the victim, but she maintained throughout that she had acted in self-defense. She was steadfast in her adherence to that position during the interrogations, and throughout the questioning the police attempted to have her recant her version of the incident by indicating their disbelief in her story, by exhorting her to tell the truth and arguing with her, by recounting what other persons, some named, some unnamed, had told them, by stating their opinions as to what had occurred, and by referring to what the victim had said when deposed five months before her death in a civil proceeding regarding custody of the accused’s daughter Renee. At the hearing on the motion and during the trial when the challenged evidence was offered, defense counsel made clear that there was no objection to the statements made by the accused.

What he wanted kept from the jury was the comments of the police: ⁴³⁴ “I think the record should show I have no objection to the answers she gave. I have objections to the testimony, or the alleged testimony of the officers [included in the recordings].” And later he told the court: “Let me just explain myself. I say — I have no objection to the statements she made. What I object to is the statement that the cops make, not only in this area [how the victim’s throat was cut] but all through later on.

It’s — it’s their statements, not hers. The question is, should her statements be admitted? The answer is yes, everything that she said.” In that context, defense counsel presented the bases for the motion to suppress. The first was that replete throughout the recordings were statements by the police which, if admitted, would deny the accused her constitutional right to be confronted by her accusers.

The transcript of the hearing reads: THE COURT: Well, that is a stupid argument. Confrontation means the witnesses on the witness stand. And how confrontation and the right thereto can be involved in this motion is beyond me. MR. [R. CLARK] KINSLEY [defense counsel]: Do you want to hear my reasons?

THE COURT: No. Next reason. MR. KINSLEY: The statements — I would, of course, like to expand upon it. THE COURT: No. You have made the point for the record.

You say that your right of confrontation has been infringed upon. MR. KINSLEY: I think the record should also show that Your Honor is pushing this case too rapidly. THE COURT: Mr. Kinsley, I will run this court.

You have made your objection on the record. I have declined to permit you to expand on that. Would you please state your next basis for objection. The next basis for objection was that the recordings contained “opinions of the State Police not based on fact, but opinions, ⁴³⁵ and that this type of evidence should not be presented to the jury, opinions of police officers.” The court set out the procedure it thought would solve this problem: The jury will be instructed that statements made by way of questions are not evidence and are not to be considered.

That is akin to the same type of questioning that occurs every day in a trial court. The jury is instructed they don’t pay any attention to the question, it’s the answer that they get. And this Court will instruct the jury on all occasions, perhaps even before that piece of evidence is offered, that they are not to consider anything within the content of a question or a statement made, they are merely to consider the answer given by the defendant. All right.

You have made your point. Defense counsel was not satisfied: MR. KINSLEY: But the statement refers to people that the police have talked to, not identifying who they are. THE COURT: Right.

MR. KINSLEY: And saying what they found out, or allegedly found out, from those people. THE COURT: Right. MR.

KINSLEY: It also contains a reference to a custody proceeding and refers to alleged happenings at the custody proceeding, such as knife throwing, which is a very vital factor. THE COURT: It may be. It may well be that as the testimony is offered, that there might be portions thereof that are irrelevant, and as the questions are offered to the jury, appropriate objections can be made at that time. MR.

KINSLEY: If the Court please, throughout this, questions are repeatedly asked, and they don’t even wait for an answer, so all we have coming before the jury is — ⁴³⁶ THE COURT: If a question is unanswered, it will be stricken out. MR. KINSLEY: But if they play a tape — THE COURT: They have not yet offered a tape. They may offer a printed transcript of it.

MR. KINSLEY: Then I would ask that the tape be suppressed and only the written transcript be used, so that the Court— THE COURT: I may suggest that that might be the appropriate way to handle the evidentiary problems. MR. [MARK] KOLMAN [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Your Honor, the State had intended to offer both for purposes of clarity to the jury. I think it’s important in the situation, considering the type of case we have got, that the jury actually hear the defendant’s words.

THE COURT: All right. MR. KINSLEY: They will be ringing a bell. THE COURT: Well, it may well be, but that problem can be taken up when we come to it.

Okay. Next objection, Mr. Kinsley. The next objection to the receipt of the recordings was that they contain “repeated argument, not opinions, not evidence, not testimony, nothing but pure argument on the part of the troopers, arguing with the defendant, not questions, not answers, but just pure argument.” The court merely said: “All right. I understand the objection.

Next.” Defense counsel asked that the recordings be suppressed “for those reasons.” The motion to suppress was denied. After discussion of other procedural matters, defense counsel returned to the matter of the tapes: MR. KINSLEY: Now, if the Court please, I would like to know how we should proceed in the introduction of the statement, questions and answers by the State Police. THE COURT: Well, we’ll wait until we get to that ⁴³⁷ point.

We’re going to swear a jury in. That’s all that’s necessary. That’s what you do, number one. Then you make your opening statement to the jury.

That’s number two. Then the State proceeds to call witnesses. That’s number three. And we’ll try this case just like any other.

When the State offers testimony, you object to it, and we’ll take it up when we come to it. The jury was sworn and trial proceeded. There came a point in the trial when the State offered the tapes and a transcript of them. Defense counsel’s objection was summarily overruled and the tapes and transcript were received in evidence.

The prosecutor asked that “the jurors be allowed to view the copy of the transcript so that they may follow along with the tape, as it’s played.” The court said: “It certainly is preferable, because I never have seen or heard a tape yet that didn’t have some static to it or difficulty.” Defense counsel reminded the court: But, now, if the Court please, you know, I earlier raised this objection,' and you agreed that there’s a possibility that some of the testimony, some of the questions, some of the statements of the police is purely objectionable, and you would rule it out. The court replied: “When that time comes, I will instruct the jury to disregard it. I will follow the tapes, as well.” This did not console the defense: “It would seem to me,” observed Mr. Kinsley, “that it would be more appropriate if they didn’t understand and the State’s Attorney could read from the transcript, or the officer could.... But if they’re going to read what is objectionable, then the bell has already rung.” The court responded: “This is the expedient way to do it, and I think it’s proper, and the Court will, as I say, as the expression goes, ride herd on it.” At this point, defense counsel pointed out that his objection did not run to the answers the accused gave but to the comments of the officers.

The court gave assurance that “[tjhere will not be any testimony given by officers. The only thing that the jury would consider would ⁴³⁸ be the answers to the questions by the defendant.” Defense counsel persisted: “[I]f the Court please, could you instruct the jury that if the officer says, we heard such and such from somebody, that is hearsay?” The court said: That is not evidence. The question that somebody asks is not a fact, it’s the answer that you are concerned with. The jury should, of course, if during this rather lengthy questioning — it’s about thirty-eight pages — if an officer says, now, this is such and such and such and such, is that not true, you listen to the answer.

Just because the officer asks the question doesn’t make it true. It’s just like a lawyer in open court. He says, now, did this and that and the other thing happen? That’s not evidence.

It’s the answer, yes or no. I think the jury can keep it all straight. It is manifest that at this stage of the proceedings, defense counsel was thoroughly familiar with the contents of the recordings and that the prosecution in all probability was aware of what they contained. It seems, however, that the trial court had not listened to the tapes nor read the transcripts of them, and knew no more of their contents than could be generally gleaned from the discussions of them.

Each juror was given a transcript of the recordings, and the playing of the tapes to the jury was begun. The playing had proceeded only to the point at which the police were giving the Miranda warnings when defense counsel interrupted: MR. KINSLEY: If the Court please, can we interrupt just for a minute? I think I have the right to interrupt.

I think if the jury has the printed transcript — and I have no quarrel with it being an accurate transcript — then I see no reason for having the machine played. I think the trooper should be asked questions, and I think I should be given an opportunity to object to stuff that is extremely extraneous and damaging. It’s what they think is the case. It’s an opinion. ⁴³⁹ THE COURT: We’ve gone into that.

The witness is not testifying now, he’s merely reciting what took place out of court. MR. KINSLEY: It’s pure theatrics on the part of this gentleman. He’s trying to play Cecil B. DeMille, putting on this thing.

It’s theatrics. If this is the testimony, we have no objection. Why don’t we let him read it and let me object to the questions as they come in? THE COURT: You just don’t have your proper time frame.

This is not question and answers here in court, this is questioning and answers back on May 9th, an extra-judicial proceeding. Now, the thing either comes in or it doesn’t come in. All right. The expedient point is that if the jury is going to follow this and read it, Mr. Kolman, they can’t possibly listen and understand, because if you want to understand that tape, you’re going to have to listen and concentrate on that tape.

You can’t be reading it at the same time, I don’t think. But let’s try it. You can proceed. The playing of the tape resumed.

In order to get the full flavor of the proceedings, we set out various objections which were made and the dispositions of them in some detail. The accused was recounting how the victim was cut: “It happened on the bed and we tusseled and we landed on the floor.” The interrogating officer said: “Jeannie, I don’t buy it, how did her throat get cut?” Defense counsel asked that the officer’s comment that he “didn’t buy it” be stricken as “argumentative... [i]t’s opinion.” The court did not agree: We’re not talking about the opinion of that statement, we’re just giving the jury the whole picture of how this question took place, whether the trooper believed her or not is beside the point. It’s what this jury believes the answers mean. Now, we’ve gone into that. ⁴⁴⁰ Trial counsel did not give up.

He again pointed out that he was not objecting to the statements made by the accused but to those made by the police. The court overruled the objection. Later on the officer said to the accused: “Ms. Crawford it is very improbable that she received all those wounds and you didn’t receive any —” Defense counsel objected and was overruled with this comment by the court: The jury has been told three or four times not to pay any attention to the content of a question, except insofar as it provokes an answer. The matter is for the jury to decide and not the interrogating officer.

Defense counsel pointed out that “it’s not a question," and was again overruled with direction for the State to proceed. Further into the interrogation the officer expressed doubt as to how the victim got on the floor, suggesting that she was rolled off the bed by the accused when she took the bed linens off. He said: “Now we can tell by the injuries received on her ____We can tell exactly where she was laying and how she was laying.” Defense counsel objected: “It’s not a question, it’s a statement by the officer.” The court: “Go on. Objection overruled.” The accused said that “[m]ost of the stabbing took place on the bed because that’s where we were fighting that’s where she knocked me down —” The officer interposed: “But she had one clear, clean cut around her throat, not a bunch of slashes that you are describing that took place in this fight.” Defense counsel: “Objection.

It’s not a question, it’s an opinion of the trooper.” The court: “It has to be listened to in the context of the answer. The opinion of the trooper means nothing whatever. It’s up to the jury to evaluate all this testimony. Now let’s proceed.

Objection overruled.” Inquiry about how the victim's throat was cut continued. The interrogator opined: It’s not the kind of a wound one would receive from a struggle, it appears to be one clean cut. Now, if it happened other than that let’s get it all cleared up.now. I think there is a little bit more to it and admittedly you said you were frightened, you were scared.

Miss Crawford, if you were protecting ⁴⁴¹ yourself and then got carried away tell us so that we know exactly how it happened because the way you are describing it doesn’t match up with the way it happened and she is down at the morgue now and we will have the results in a little while, other injuries and whether she fell on that floor after she was dead or before. Again objection was made on the ground that it was not a question and again the objection was summarily overruled. As the interrogation continued the officer said: I’m sure you are frightened, you have nothing to be frightened of with us, we want to find out exactly what happened, now every time we keep on talking we find out that you are not telling the truth about something else. Objection was overruled.

At another time the tapes reflected the officer’s disbelief with what the accused was saying: But we are going to learn certain things from the autopsy and from what’s found at the scene, the blood on the bed, the blood on the bedsheets, we gonna learn from the blood on the body whether she died on the bed or on the floor, we’re gonna learn that, ok. Defense counsel’s objection was overruled and his request that it be stricken was denied. There was objection overruled to the officer’s declaration: “Ms. Crawford I don’t believe her throat was cut while she had the knife in her hand, it would have been turned around the other way.” Further into the playing of the tape defense counsel again indicated his dissatisfaction with the procedure being followed: MR. KINSLEY: Your Honor, I’d like to take this opportunity to — THE COURT: Hold on a minute.

MR. KINSLEY: You have — THE COURT: Hold on a minute. Do you have an objection? ⁴⁴² MR. KINSLEY: I’d like to explain what I have in mind.

There’s two troopers firing questions — MR. KOLMAN: Your Honor, I’m going to object, unless he has an objection. MR. KINSLEY: — and the statements here do not reflect that there’s two different troopers.

THE COURT: I don’t think it makes any difference whether there were two troopers or three troopers. The question’s asked by a trooper and answered by the defendant. The objection will be overruled. I agree that good police practice is better to restrict interrogation to one questioner, but they’ll do it every time.

They all want to get in the act. When the accused told the police that she was afraid during the argument with the victim and that the victim came after her with a knife, the officer made an observation which defense counsel characterized as “the most objectionable statement. This isn’t a statement by the defendant. This isn’t a question.” The officer said: When you got the knife — I think you’re gonna feel better if you get all this off your chest — I think you really feel bad now, you feel guilty because you got carried away and you had your chance there and your got rid of her — you just kept doing it — and you’re going to feel better after you tell somebody about it — you can’t keep it all bottled up inside you Ms. Crawford — you can’t keep it all inside you — you can’t get all up tight in knots.

The court was not impressed with defense counsel’s objection: The jury understands it’s not a statement of the defendant. They can listen to it and know that it’s not, and they know not to pay any attention to the questions of the interrogator. They don’t constitute any proof of facts. The jury should pay no attention ⁴⁴³ to the content of the question, what they consider are the defendant’s answers, alone.

Any further objections are overruled. When the recording of the second interrogation and the transcript of it was offered and received in evidence, defense counsel made clear that his objections were the same as for the first tape. The court said: “All right, same objection, same ruling.” The transcript of the proceedings shows further remarks by the court and the defense: THE COURT: Mr. Kinsley’s objections to portions of this tape are based on the fact that during the interrogation the questioner says this is what happened, this is what happened, this is what happened, and I want — there’s a good example in the first question in this tape of May the 11th, the fact that a questioner asserts something isn’t proof of that fact, at all. You have to judge this tape and these interviews solely in the context of the answer given to the question.

All right. MR. KINSLEY: As well as the opinions of the troopers, too. THE COURT: Well, their opinions aren’t evidence.

Whereupon the tape of the second interrogation was played to the jury. The police gave the accused the Miranda warnings again. Two troopers participated in the questioning that followed: Tpr. Williams: Ok, Jeannie, we are going to talk about a few things in this incident, first of all I am going to lay it right on the line to you, ok, tell you just what we know, ok, everything that happened to Lillie happened on that bed, you stabbed her on that bed and cut her throat on that bed and she rolled off that bed.

You threatened to kill her at 7:00 o’clock when those two maintenance men were changing the lock, we have signed statements from both of them, they heard ⁴⁴⁴ you threaten her, we know you hid the knife under the sheets of the bed, under the pillow of the bed, Renee told us that — Jeannie: I did what? Tpr.Williams: Hid the knife under the pillow of the bed early in the evening. Tpr. Gallant: Jeannie, Renee saw you and Lillie fighting earlier.

Jeannie: I told you — Tpr. Gallant- Like you said, like you told us, only thing is it wasn’t like you told us. Jeannie: I don’t know what you mean. I told you exafctly what had happened.

Tpr. Gallant: Renee saw you take, saw Lillie take the knife away from you earlier in the evening — Tpr. Williams: Then she saw you take the knife from the, take the knife from the dishwasher and hide it under the pillow and blanket of the bed. She saw it.

Jeannie: No sir, I didn’t do that. Tpr. Williams: She has four stab wounds in the back — ⁴⁴⁵ Tpr. Gallant: Lillie, I mean Jeannie, you know these things have come to our attention since we talked to you last, now, there’s no sense beating around the bush, we’re not going to beat around the bush and we don’t want you to, but we know how you cut her throat we told you we would find out from the autopsy, we know about all the stab wounds, the stab wounds she had and her throat being cut could not have possibly been inflicted as a result of a struggle or an accident.

Jeannie: It was a struggle. Tpr. Gallant: It couldn’t have been — Tpr. Williams: It couldn’t have been Jeannie.

Tpr. Gallant: We told you we’d find out from the medical examiners report, now, I think it’s about time you tell us — Jeannie: I did tell you, it was, it was, a struggle, it was first a