Lenoir v. State

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Joseph G. Lenoir, a 26 year old law student at the University of Baltimore, was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on three indictments charging extortion, and one charging assault upon a police officer. He was represented by counsel of his own selection and elected a jury trial. At the conclusion of the testimony the State entered a not pros as to one of the indictments for extortion.

He was found guilty on the third and fourth counts of indictment no. 1767 (extortion), on the first and eighth counts of indictment no. 1769 (extortion), and on the first count of indictment no. 1770 (assault upon an officer). After a motion for new trial had been overruled by the Supreme Bench, he was sentenced to two years in the Maryland House of Correction under indictment no. 1767, and to a like term under indictment no. 1769, to run concurrently. He was fined $25.00 and costs under indictment no. 1770, which he paid. The appeal is from these judgments and sentences.

After the appeal was entered, his attorney struck out his appearance, and the case was argued here by the appellant in proper person. As developed by the State’s witnesses, it appears that on March 23, 1950 Harry E. Cann, Sr. received a telephone call from a man who claimed to be a law enforcement officer and to have an indictment against Cann and proof that Cann had approached Dr. G. Loutrell Timanus to procure an abortion operation. On the following day, this same person telephoned again and said that he was in the State’s Attorney’s office and wanted $3,000 from Cann. Cann testified that he did not know Lenoir at that time, and that he had never seen Dr. Timanus.

On March 30, 1950 Miss Anne E. Adams, a registered nurse employed by Dr. Timanus, received a telephone call from a man whom she identified at the trial as the appellant. He stated that he had information that Dr. ⁵⁰⁰ Timanus was guilty of evasion of income taxes in a large amount, and unless he was paid $10,000 within twenty-four hours he would inform the Federal authorities. Miss Adams called Miss Bessie E. Nelson, medical secretary to Dr. Timanus, who called Dr. Timanus in Florida. He instructed them to inform the police, and they did so.

On the following evening Lieutenant Godman of the Police Department waited in Miss Adams’ apartment, with Miss Nelson, until the man called again. At God-man’s suggestion, they told the caller they would turn over $5,000 in $50 bills to an intermediary at St. Paul and Madison Streets at 10 P.M. The intermediary was to identify himself by means of a piece of paper on which the letter “A” would be written in lipstick. Shortly before 10 P.M., the appellant met John Arthur Sullivan, a merchant seaman, outside a tavern, and asked him if he wanted to earn $10 by picking up a package of letters from a woman. Sullivan agreed, and they drove to within a block of the meeting place in a taxicab.

The seaman walked to the corner, identified himself with a paper given him by the appellant, and received the package, whereupon he was arrested by the police. He protested that he was acting for a man down the street, whom the police saw run into an alley, but failed to apprehend. Several hours later, Miss Adams received another telephone call from the appellant, asking “what kind of a deal she was pulling”. He said he now wanted $10,000 in cash, and would telephone her the next day.

After several more telephone calls to Miss Adams and Miss Nelson, another meeting place was arranged at the corner of Charles and Redwood Streets at 1 P.M. April 5, 1950. Shortly before that hour the appellant stopped a Diamond cab driven by Robert S. Spoon and asked him to pick up a package for him; that this was “official business”. He told him how one of the women would be dressed, to tell them “Mac” sent him, and to bring the package to the Custom House. ⁵⁰¹ This time the police trap was effective. When the driver picked up the package, containing a wad of paper and a marked bill, the police followed the cab to the Custom House and arrested Lenoir as he was receiving the package.

The arresting officer displayed his badge, but a fight ensued in which one of the officers was hit in the eye, and Lenoir was hit on the head with the butt of a revolver. Lenoir was booked at the Central Police Station, then taken to the Mercy Hospital for medical treatment, then to the Police Station where he was interviewed by Captain Kriss in the presence of Anselm Sodaro, Assistant State’s Attorney. The appellant admitted that he had made telephone calls to Miss Adams and to Miss Nelson. He later admitted to Sergeant Humphrey that he had called Mr. Cann.

On the following day, he was interrogated by Captain Kriss in the presence of Miss Adams, Miss Nelson and Mr. Cann. At the close of the State’s case, the appellant took the stand in his own defense. He admitted that he had talked to Miss Adams and Miss Nelson on the telephone on several occasions, though not on the dates in question. He also said they called him on several occasions, in an effort to bribe him to withhold from the Federal authorities information he had concerning the evasion of income tax payments by Dr. Timanus.

He admitted telephoning to Mr. Cann, to obtain his cooperation in reporting the activities of Dr. Timanus, but denied making any demand for money. He said he offered to share the reward. He admitted meeting Sullivan, giving him the marked paper and arranging for him to obtain a package. He admitted similar arrangements with Spoon.

His explanation was that he intended to report these matters to the Federal authorities and obtain an informer’s fee. He admitted that he had been previously convicted of conspiracy, or false pretense, in connection with the alteration of a motor vehicle title, and sentenced to three years in the House of Correction, for which he had been paroled. He admitted striking Officer Warren, but said he did not know he was a policeman as he was not in uniform. ⁵⁰² The appellant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights throughout the proceedings, that his counsel was guilty of misconduct and collusion with the State, and that the State was guilty of “malfeasance”. His first point seems to be that he was improperly subjected to interrogation by Captain Kriss, before he retained counsel.

That contention is fully answered by our recent decisions in Grear v. State, 194 Md. 335, 348-349 , 71 A. 2d 24 , 30 and Day v. State, 196 Md. 384 , 76 A. 2d 729 . The record indicates that the appellant was fully aware of his right to decline to answer. Indeed, he declined to answer most of the questions put to him and did not confess.' Such admissions as he made he repeated when he took the stand. He does not allege any mistreatment.

If, as now appears, his conversation in the presence of the prosecuting witnesses enabled them to identify his voice, this was not a denial of constitutional rights. The appellant complains that at the preliminary hearing before the magistrate, Mr. Sodaro was invited to sit beside the magistrate and did so. Even if this could be deemed an impropriety, it has no bearing upon the subsequent indictment and trial, which was conducted by Mr. Orth. Mr. Sodaro testified at the trial as to statements made by the accused at the interview in the office of Captain Kriss.

Nor is it material to consider whether the initial bail was excessive, as contended. There is nothing to support the appellant’s contention that the Grand Jury acted upon inadmissible and insufficient evidence. Bernard v. Warden, 187 Md. 273, 279 , 49 A. 2d 737 . The appellant contends that the Grand Jury was improperly constituted, in that a divorced wife of Mr. Cann was a member of that body.

It is generally held that a juryman related to a prosecuting witness is not disqualified. State v. Hilton, 87 S. C. 434, 69 S. E. 1077 ; State v. Peterson, 110 Utah 413 , 174 P. 2d 843 ; note 18 A. L. R. 375. It is also generally held that relationship by affinity is terminated by death or divorce. Note ⁵⁰³ 117 A. L. R. 800.

No objection to her qualification was raised in the court below. The appellant asserts that he did not receive copies of the indictments and was never arraigned. The docket entries in each case contain