Holmes v. State

SONNER, Judge. This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree murder and a sentence of fifty years incarceration. Darían Tera Holmes, appellant, was charged by the Grand Jury for Prince George’s County with first degree murder, second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Holmes made an incriminating statement during interrogation, which he sought to suppress prior to trial.

After a hearing, Judge Robert J. Woods denied the motion. Thereafter, a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County acquitted Holmes of first degree murder but failed to ⁵⁵⁰ reach a verdict as to the second degree murder and handgun charges. A second jury convicted Holmes of second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Holmes raises two issues on appeal, which we have rephrased slightly: I. Did the trial court properly deny Holmes’s motion to suppress his incriminating statement?

II

Did the trial court properly admit the written statements of three State witnesses? We answer both questions in the affirmative and uphold the trial court’s conviction. Factual Background On June 20,1995, at approximately 1:55 a.m., Danise Harris and her roommate Ellouise Thompson left their apartment to use the telephone at a nearby gas station. They came upon acquaintances, appellant, Miah Lewis, and Antoine Awkard.

Appellant and Harris walked together ahead of the others about fifteen feet. Moments later, Harris lay dead on the pavement. Evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that a single gunshot by a .32 caliber bullet, fired six to nine inches away, caused her death. ' The police arrested Holmes at approximately 6:30 p.m. on June 23, 1995, and took him to the Criminal Investigative Division headquarters for interrogation. Detective Anne Spivey informed Holmes that he was being questioned for the murder of Danise Harris.

She removed his handcuffs and asked appellant to remove his outer clothing and shoes so they could be examined for evidence. Holmes remained in gym shorts, a tee-shirt, and socks during the interview. Detective Spivey began speaking with Holmes around 7:00 p.m. She obtained background information learning that he was seventeen years old and had completed the eleventh grade.

She read Miranda 1 warnings out loud and completed ⁵⁵¹ an “Advice of Rights and Waiver Form” with him. She asked Holmes to read a portion of the form out loud to insure that he was able to read and understand his rights. It was her impression that he did understand. He acknowledged on the form that he understood his rights and that he wanted to make a statement without a lawyer present.

At that time, Holmes denied involvement in Harris’s death. Detective Spivey stopped questioning just before 8:00 p.m. An hour later, a second detective, Dwight DeLoatch, entered the interrogation room and, upon Holmes’s request, escorted him to the bathroom. When they returned, Detective Spivey resumed questioning, which lasted until about 11:00 p.m.

The detectives initiated two more questioning sessions before midnight. Holmes’s mother waited at the police station throughout the interrogation. Detective Spivey spoke with her but did not let her speak with her son. Spivey did tell her that her son would need an attorney.

At approximately 1:00 a.m., Detective DeLoatch and Detective Paul Owens obtained statements from Lewis and Awkard inculpating Holmes in the shooting. They told Holmes about the incriminating statements and, at 1:52 a.m., Holmes agreed to give a statement. He wrote that he shot Harris because she threatened to tell police that he was selling drugs. He finished the statement at 3:15 a.m. and, for the first time, requested an attorney.

Prior to trial, Holmes moved to suppress his statement on the grounds that he made it involuntarily. He noted as factors that he had asked for a lawyer; that his mother had not been permitted to talk to him; that he was seventeen years old; that three detectives questioned him; that the detectives removed his outer clothing; that they denied him food; and that he initially denied the crime. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress, finding that Holmes was “fully advised of his rights, he knew them, he understood them, [and] he fully waived them----” The trial judge found that the detectives did not physically assault, threaten, or “deprive ⁵⁵² him of anything in order to get him inferentially in a weaker position.” He further found that the “defendant never asserted his right to have a lawyer present during that interrogation .... ” Accordingly, the judge was persuaded that the statements were “free and voluntary.” A jury convicted him of second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The trial judge sentenced him to thirty years incarceration for the murder conviction, and a consecutive twenty-year sentence for the handgun conviction.

We include additional facts concerning the written statements of Thompson, Lewis, and Awkard as they become pertinent to the legal analysis. Legal Analysis I. Motion to Suppress In reviewing a motion to suppress, we review only the record of the suppression hearing, Matthews v. State, 106 Md.App. 725, 732 , 666 A.2d 912 (1995), cert. denied, 341 Md. 648 , 672 A.2d 623 (1996) (citations omitted), and we review the facts most favorably to the State as the prevailing party on the motion. Id. While we accept the trial court’s findings of facts unless clearly erroneous, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal as to the effect of those facts.

Id. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination protects defendants from having their involuntary statements admitted into evidence. Lodowski v. State, 302 Md. 691, 716 , 490 A.2d 1228 (1985) (Lodowski I). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), set out prophy lactic rules for safeguarding the Fifth Amendment guarantee.

It prescribed that law enforcement officials must advise defendants, subject to custodial interrogation, of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present if defendants’ responses are later to be admitted into evidence. Lodowski, 302 Md. at 716 , 490 A.2d 1228 . In the present case, Holmes concedes that detective Spivey gave proper Miranda warn ⁵⁵³ ings, but challenges the adequacy of his waiver, claiming that he did not understand his rights and did not voluntarily waive them. Defendants may waive their Miranda rights, provided, under the totality of the circumstances, they act voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 . The court must consider defendant’s age, intelligence, education, experience, and mental capacity, as well as the length of interrogation, the tactics of interrogation, and whether law enforcement threatened or induced the suspect to confess. See Lodowski v. State, 307 Md. 233, 254-55 , 513 A.2d 299 (1986) (Lodowski II). We apply the same totality of the circumstances test to juvenile waivers.

McIntyre v. State, 309 Md. 607, 615 , 526 A.2d 30 (1987) (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)). Tender age and inexperience, however, require law enforcement to take great care that juvenile statements are voluntary. McIntyre, 309 Md. at 617 , 526 A.2d 30 . The State must prove valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.

Id. at 615 , 526 A.2d 30 (citations omitted). Considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we conclude that the trial judge correctly admitted Holmes’s pre-trial statement. Holmes was seventeen years old and had completed the eleventh grade, indicating a normal progression in school. He read a portion of the waiver out loud and there was no indication that he did not understand his rights.

Nor was the length of the interrogation excessive. Although Holmes was in custody for seven hours prior to giving a statement, he was interrogated for only three hours, with the longest period of uninterrupted questioning lasting only about an hour. As to the interrogation techniques, the trial court found no evidence of threat or inducement. Detective Spivey offered Holmes food and drink, which he declined, and Holmes used the bathroom upon request.

Holmes makes much of the fact that his mother was not permitted to sit with him during the interrogation. The absence of a parent or guardian, however, ⁵⁵⁴ does not, in itself, render a juvenile statement involuntary. Jones v. State, 311 Md. 398, 407-08 , 535 A.2d. 471 (1988). Holmes did not ask to speak with his mother, nor did he produce evidence showing that his mother would have assisted in contemplating his legal rights.

See McIntyre, 309 Md. at 626 , 526 A.2d 30 . Additionally, we do not infer improper interrogation tactics from the fact that he confessed only after the detectives informed him that his friends implicated him in the murder. Arguably, the existence of incriminating evidence, not overbearing police tactics, induced Holmes to speak at that time. Accordingly, our independent