Moore v. State

MURPHY, J. In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, a jury convicted Khiry Montay Moore, Petitioner, of first degree felony murder and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Petitioner concedes that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses on March 11, 2007, but he argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the State’s evidence included an involuntary statement that he made during a custodial interrogation. The Circuit Court denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress that statement, and that ruling was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals in Moore v. State, 194 Md.App. 327 , 4 A.3d 96 (2010). After Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari in which he presented a single question for our review: Should [Petitioner’s] confession, which was obtained when he was on[e] month past his sixteenth birthday, have been suppressed as involuntary given that virtually all of the relevant factors pointed to involuntariness, including the ⁵¹⁹ fact that, as both the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals found, the police unnecessarily delayed presenting [Petitioner] to a District Court Commissioner in order to interrogate him and the fact that the police ignored thirteen requests by [Petitioner] to speak to his mother?

For the reasons that follow, we shall answer “yes” to that question, and hold that Petitioner is entitled to a new trial at which the State is prohibited from introducing any direct or derivative evidence of Petitioner’s inculpatory statement. Background The opinion of the Court of Special Appeals included the following factual summary: [Petitioner] was arrested on March 21, 2007 at approximately 1:00 a.m. He was taken to police headquarters, where he was interrogated and ultimately confessed. [Petitioner] moved to suppress his confession, which the trial court denied. The videotape of his confession was played for the jury and, as noted, he was convicted of first-degree felony murder, involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit robbery, three counts of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon and three counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence.

The following evidence was presented at the suppression hearing. On March 21, 2007, Corporal James Seger was patrolling the Cindy Lane area of Prince George’s County while working for the Special Assignment team. He pulled into an apartment complex and observed a group of young people standing outside. When they saw his police cruiser, they walked away.

Because it was 1:00 a.m., Corporal Seger stopped them, suspecting curfew violations. [Petitioner] was among the group. Corporal Seger learned that there was an outstanding warrant for [Petitioner's arrest stemming from a homicide. [Petitioner] was arrested pursuant to the warrant at 1:09 a.m. and taken to the homicide ⁵²⁰ section of the Prince George’s County Police Department. They arrived between 1:40 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. Corporal Seger placed [Petitioner] in an interview room, pursuant to the instructions of the homicide division.

Corporal Seger did not engage in any questioning of [Petitioner] at that time. He simply searched [Petitioner], removed his handcuffs and left him in the room. Thereafter, Detective David Morissette, who was working the night shift that evening, called Detective Robert Turner, the lead investigator in the case. Detective Turner instructed Detective Morissette to begin talking to [Petitioner].

Accordingly, Detective Morissette entered the interview room shortly after 2:00 a.m. and read [Petitioner] his Miranda rights. [Petitioner] initialed beside each advisement and agreed to waive his rights. Detective Morissette began to collect background information from [Petitioner] at that time. He learned that [Petitioner] was sixteen years old, was in the ninth grade and had previously been arrested for theft or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Subsequently, at 2:41 a.m., Detective Timothy Cordero entered the interview room and questioned [Petitioner] until 3:05 a.m.

He testified that he entered the room in order to collect “some preliminary background information” for his partner, who was the lead investigator on the case. Detective Cordero presented [Petitioner] with photographs of his co-defendants and asked [Petitioner] if he recognized the individuals. [Petitioner] stated that he did not recognize them. Detective Cordero then presented [Petitioner] with the arrest warrant and informed [Petitioner] that he was being charged as an adult with murder as a result of the incident that took place on Daimler Drive. At that time, [Petitioner] asked to call his mother.

Detective Cordero denied his request and informed him that he was going to obtain a search warrant for [Petitioner]^ home. Shortly after Detective Cordero exited the interview room, Detective Robert Turner entered the room at 3:20 a.m. to collect “basic booking information.” He then questioned [Petitioner] about the shooting. Initially, [Petitioner] denied his involvement. ⁵²¹ Detective Turner testified that he left the room at approximately 5:05 a.m. and, shortly thereafter, provided [Petitioner] with a soda. At approximately 5:18 a.m., Detective Turner re-entered the interview room and spoke with [Petitioner] until 6:15 a.m.

He informed [Petitioner] that multiple people had placed [Petitioner] at the scene, whereupon [Petitioner] admitted that he was present and that he had a discussion about the robbery with his co-defendants. [Petitioner] continued to deny that he was the shooter. Detective Turner entered the room once more at 6:48 a.m. and [Petitioner] requested to use the restroom. Detective Turner granted the request and he and [Petitioner] stepped out of the interview room until approximately 6:55 a.m. It was not until 8:05 a.m. that [Petitioner] admitted to Detective Turner that he shot [the victim] by accident. [Petitioner] further explained that he had been drinking that night, which had impaired his thinking.

After obtaining these statements, Detective Turner exited the interview room. At 8:13 a.m., Detective Turner permitted [Petitioner] to make a telephone call. He called his girlfriend at that time. At 8:35 a.m.

Detective Turner re-entered the interview room, followed by Sergeant Troy Harding at 8:40 a.m. The two officers went over [Petitioner]^ confession and exited the room at 8:50 a.m. Between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m., Sergeant Harding reentered the interview room and had a discussion with [Petitioner] about the location of the gun used in the shooting. Sergeant Harding left the room again at 9:25 a.m.

At 1:00 p.m., after the search warrant was executed on [Petitioner]^ home, [PetitionerJ’s mother was transported to the police station and was escorted into the interview room, where she and [Petitioner] spoke for approximately fifteen minutes. According to Detective Turner, [Petitioner] was “taken to the jail” at approximately 1:30 p.m., but he did not ⁵²² know when [Petitioner] was processed, although he knew that there were commissioners at the jail. Detective Turner testified that he did not immediately take [Petitioner] to a commissioner because he “wanted the opportunity to speak to him and explain the charges, get his side of the story” and the officers were “preparing a search warrant” during that time. He explained that the search warrant process took approximately two hours.

Although Detective Turner wanted to go to the on-call judge’s home to get the warrant signed, the commissioner informed him that the judge’s instructions were to wait until he arrived at his office at 8:30 a.m. At that time, the search warrant was signed. Sergeant Harding expressed similar sentiments, explaining that they were attempting to gather evidence in support of a search warrant and to prevent [Petitioner] from making a call and causing evidence to be disposed of. The trial court made the following findings: With regard to the question of the motion to suppress statements made by [Petitioner] during the course of approximately eleven and a half hours of being in the custody of the police, the Court will begin, as a backdrop, by rejecting a delay Type 2 analysis or weighing of the interrogation.

That is the type that is deemed to be a necessary delay and immaterial to suppression. So it’s rejected as a pure matter.... [A]nd that’s because throughout the interrogation there is no information that was gathered that would have served as a basis for obtaining an arrest warrant that was not already in hand. The same is true with regard to information to support application for a search warrant. Shooters often hide weapons at home and a warrant would have been issued under the circumstances, plus the warrant effort began at a time when [Petitioner] was still protesting that he was innocent....

With regard to the interrogation, I believe that we have to begin with the arrival at the station. And that period of time up until 2:23.58, the Court considers to be a Type ⁵²³ 5 delay ... a delay that is for the sole purpose of custodial interrogation, but during which no interrogation actually occurs. Detective Morissette gathered biographical information with the exception of the Advice of Rights and Waiver, but there was no questioning during that period of time. That period of time between 2:43 and 2:59 ... a little over 16 minutes when Detective Cordero was in the interview room, the Court characterizes that as a Type 4, Class II, unnecessary and deliberate delay that violates the prompt presentment requirement and is for the sole purpose of obtaining a confession, and the Court considers that as weighing heavily against a determination of voluntariness.

During the period of time from 3 to 3:19.28, [Petitioner] is alone. That would be a Type 5 delay, one that is for the sole purpose of custodial interrogation, but during which no interrogation occurs. Obviously, that would be of slight weight with regard to the issue of voluntariness. That period of time from 3:19.28 to 3:37.15, [sic] also a Type 5 delay.

More information although redundant in the nature of that obtained by Detective Morissette and Cordero, plus more, [sic] no questioning regarding the crime occurring. And at this period of time—during that period of time Detective Turner is in the room. The period of time from 3:37.15 to 5:05.15, an hour and 28 minutes, this is a Type 4 interrogation, weighs heavily against voluntariness ... That period of time from 5:05 until 5:13.5, the Defendant is alone.

This is Type 5. No interrogation is occurring. From 5:13 to 6:13.26, an hour, interrogation is occurring. This is Type 4, and we give it the appropriate weight.

From 6:13.26 to 6:47.06, the Defendant is alone. That is Type 5. Between 6:47.06 and 6:50.27, there is no interrogation occurring. That is also Type 5.

From 6:50.27 to 6:51.57, [Petitioner] is alone. That’s Type 5. No interrogation. From 6:51.57 to 6:55.53, this is ⁵²⁴ Type 5. [Petitioner] was taken to the bathroom and offered breakfast....

From 6:55.53 to 8:05.37, a period of one hour and ten minutes, there is Type 4 interrogation occurring. We give it the appropriate weight. From 8:05.37 until 8:10.35, [Petitioner] is alone. From 8:10.35 to 8:39, that’s also Type 5 as to the period of time before when [Petitioner] is alone....

There is no interrogation during this period of time. Between 8:30.14 and 8:46 when Detective Harding is there, that’s a period of seven minutes. This is Type 4 interrogation. We give it the appropriate weight.

Between 8:46 and 8:48.17, that’s a three-minute period. It’s a mixture of Type 4 and Type 2. The Court deems it to be more of Type 2 insofar as the questioning is an effort to recover the gun and to keep it from falling into the wrong hands. From 8:48.17 to 9:15, [Petitioner] is alone.

That is a Type 4[sie] delay. Between 9:15.50 and 9:31, this is more questioning about the gun, a mixture of Type 4, but more of a Type 2 because there is an effort to find out where the gun is at. That period was 16 minutes. Between 9:28.30 and 12.30.47, the Court deems that to be Type 1 ... is one that can have no effect on the voluntariness of a statement and is, therefore, immaterial to the suppression.

The statement had been given by then and there was no effort to obtain a statement during that period of time. In addition to weighing the delay, the circuit court considered that [Petitioner] was sixteen years old, in the ninth grade, able to speak the English language and displayed rational thought processes. Although not experienced with the adult criminal justice system, [Petitioner] had prior contact with the system as a juvenile “sufficient to have been read his Miranda Rights.” The court found that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that the detectives “carefully avoided making any promise” to [Petitioner] during their interactions. The court further pointed out that [Petitioner] “challenged the officers as to the ⁵²⁵ nature of any incriminating evidence against him and offered numerous denials.... ” In addition, the court determined that [Petitioner] demonstrated that he was alert and “out and about” after 1:00 a.m. when he was arrested and, although he communicated that he was tired at approximately 6:47 a.m., he “remained sharp of wit or [sic] alertness, including discerning efforts of Detective Turner to perhaps put words in his mouth.” The court acknowledged that [Petitioner] made several requests to place a telephone call to his mother and that, initially, the requests were denied, concluding that it “was reasonable for police to delay any contact until the search warrant was executed ...” because [Petitioner] indicated during the interviews that his mother was at home.

When given the opportunity to call his mother, the court observed, [Petitioner] called his girlfriend. Finally, the court observed that [Petitioner] was permitted bathroom breaks, food and drink whenever they were requested although perhaps “not as many opportunities ... as one might have preferred.” Ultimately, the court concluded: The Court notes that the total time of actual interrogation was 4 hours and 21 minutes. We go through what I went through. Twenty-seven of those minutes related to Detective’s [sic] Harding’s—Sergeant Harding’s questioning about the whereabouts of the gun.

Weighing the various factors, acknowledging that the Court has effectively found that the Defendant was being held by the police specifically to get a statement, looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the statements made were voluntarily made and the motion to suppress