White v. State

⁴⁹⁰ Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Leroy White, the appellant, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City of the crime of rape. The case was heard by the court sitting as a jury. The only question presented by the appeal is the admissibility of the confession made by the accused. .

In the early morning of May 11, 1952, Mrs. Evelyn Goodman, who lives in the Gilmor housing project in Baltimore, heard someone trying the knob of the screen door. Peering through the Venetian blind on the door, she saw someone trying to open it, saw his face, and identified him as the appellant, whom she had known as a result of a similar occurrence in 1947. She called the police and gave them White’s idescription, including that of the clothing worn by him. As a result, Officer Boyle of the Baltimore City Police Department, arrested the appellant two blocks away, in a short time.

There had been other complaints of various kinds from residents of the housing project, and on May 13, 1952, a line-up was held and four persons picked the appellant from the line-up. White' admits that he was involved in some of the complaints but denied knowledge of others. : Sergeant Low of the Baltimore Police, in the course of .an , investigation of . Mrs. Goodman’s .. ..complaint, searched WJxi.te’s 'home. In a cabinet, he found a pair of checked trousers, which, on a cleaner’s mark, bore the name “Hunt”.

Mrs. Helen Hunt, the prosecuting witness, testified that she lived in the Gilmor housing project • and on the morning ■ of April 28, 1952, was- alone in the apartment with her small daughter. She was sleeping in bed, awoke and saw a man standing over her. She identified this man as the appellant. She was frightened arid ran into the living room, where the appellant, with his hands, át her throat, threatened to kill her if she screamed, and raped her.

The appellant then took a'pair of her husband’s trousers,' a radio, thirty dollrirs in cásh and one of her husband’s jackets. She identified the trousers, found by Sergeant Low at White’s home, as those which ⁴⁹¹ had been taken by him from her apartment. White left through the front' door (he had entered through the bathroom window) and placed the radio in front of the door, where it was recovered. Mrs. Hunt called the police immediately and was taken to the Provident Hospital for medical attention.

Several days after his arrest, Mrs. Hunt identified White in the police line-up as the man who had attacked her. Sergeant Andrews of the Baltimore Police Department, took the stand to testify that he had taken a statement from White, which was reduced to writing, concerning the case at bar. Appellant’s counsel objected to the statement on the basis that it was not voluntary, and cross-examined the witness to substantiate this objection. Sergeant Andrews testified at some length, saying that White, when first questioned on May 11, denied any participation in the crime, and that on May 12, he also denied any guilt.

The interrogation of that day lasted about an hour. He did not talk to White on the 13th of May, but on the 14th, the questioning was resumed about quarter of six in the morning, with Officer Boyle also present. The line-up had taken place on May 13. The method of procedure was to ask White questions and to write down the answers as he made them.

All the answers given by White were written down. Andrews’ testimony was that the pair of trousers which belonged to Mr. Hunt were shown to White and that as a result, he said, “I might as well tell you what happened. You got me. They came out of the woman’s— I don’t know her name.

I believe it is Hunt. I was in her apartment. I had intercourse with her. She told me I' could take anything I wanted. . .

I took these pants.” Sergeant Andrews said he told White that anything he cared to tell he could, and what he told could be used for or against him, but no physical violence was used at any time, and no promises or inducements were made. Officer Boyle corroborated this testimony. White admits that the three-page statement was signed by him after he had read each page. He says, howeVer, ⁴⁹² that the statement was not voluntarily given, but that he was forced to sign it.

He complains that for three days he had been questioned concerning the rape and