Parker v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant was convicted by a jury of the commission of two armed robberies. He contends that the trial court was in error in admitting into evidence the written statement of the appellant by way of a confession. One robbery was of a grocery store on Lafayette Avenue in Baltimore City.

Two men entered the store, one took a sawed-off shot gun from under his jacket and held up the proprietor, an employee, and a customer, while the other proceeded to remove approximately $300.00 from the cash register. The second case involves the robbery of a liquor store on Harford Avenue. The pattern in this case was similar to the one involving the grocery store. The proprietor and an employee were held up, and in this instance $400.00 was taken from the cash register.

At the trial none of the eye witnesses could identify the appellant as one of the robbers. On December 30, 1959, the appellant was arrested at his home on Eutaw Place. When taken to police headquarters he was questioned by Detective Sergeant Burke concerning a series of robberies, but the appellant denied any knowledge of them. The interrogation lasted about one-half hour, whereupon the appellant was returned to his cell.

Sergeant Burke testified that the appellant appeared to be in good physical condition then and made no complaints about his health. Detective Sergeant Stevens testified that at about 7:30 P. M. on December 30, 1959, the appellant was brought into the Hold-up Squad Room at Detective Headquarters. There Sergeant Stevens, along with Detectives Craig and Walker, proceeded to discuss, among others, the grocery and liquor store robberies. The appellant gave a statement admitting the robberies, which was reduced to writing, signed by the appellant and witnessed by the three detectives.

All testified that no force or violence was asserted toward the appellant, nor were any threats or promises made to him. ²⁹¹ Sergeant Stevens further testified that the appellant never denied participation in the robberies, and that he did not confront the appellant with information to the effect that the appellant had been involved by others. Sergeant Craig’s testimony was substantially to the same effect. However, Sergeant Walker, the third officer present at the time of the interrogation and confession, testified that the appellant at first denied any participation in the robbery “several times”, and that Sergeant Stevens acquainted the appellant with certain facts relating to his participation, and that