Howell v. State

³³⁸ Per Curiam. Appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Caroline County of storehouse breaking and larceny and was thereafter sentenced to a term of ten years imprisonment. He contends on this appeal (a) that certain statements made by him to the police were introduced in evidence in violation of the principles of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , and (b) that he was convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The evidence at trial showed that at 5 :18 a.m. on Sunday, July 2, 1967, the police were notified that the burglar alarm at Cos’s Tavern had been actuated.

Two officers immediately went to the tavern where they observed appellant sitting behind the wheel of a car parked approximately seventy-five feet north of the tavern. One of the officers went to the rear of the tavern where, after hearing a crash, he observed two cases of beer being pushed out of the tavern window, followed by one Wesley Eaton. Both Eaton and appellant were arrested at the crime scene. The record discloses that after appellant was given his particularized four-fold Miranda warning, he stated that he didn’t wish to talk to the police.

Approximately an hour and a half later, while appellant was being “processed” at the police station, he was told in narrative form that Eaton admitted that it was his idea to break into the tavern and that the appellant, with knowledge of the criminal design, brought him there from Baltimore to burglarize the premises. Without any questioning by police, appellant responded to this information by admitting that he knew Eaton, that he had picked him up hitchhiking, and that while they had stopped along the road, he did not know that Eaton intended to break into the premises. These statements were introduced in evidence over appellant’s objection. In Miranda , the court held at page 473 that if, after the requisite warnings are given, “the individual indicates in any manner at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to