Williams v. State

WILNER, J. A jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, convinced that petitioner was the person who shot and killed Noraldo Sterling and terrorized his family, convicted him of first degree felony murder and a number of associated offenses, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate of life imprisonment plus ninety years. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals. The sole issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain statements he made to the police following his arrest on other charges. That issue requires us to examine the interplay between Maryland Rules 4-212(e) and (f) and Maryland Code, § 10-912 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

The Rules require that, upon arrest, an accused must be taken before a District Court Commissioner without unnecessary delay and in no event later than 24 hours after the arrest. The statute provides that a confession may not be excluded from evidence solely because ⁴⁰⁸ the defendant was not taken before a judicial officer within that time, but rather “is only one factor, among others, to be considered by the court in deciding the voluntariness and admissibility of a confession.” We shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. BACKGROUND Because we are dealing with a ruling on a suppression motion that was not revisited at trial, we shall recount the relevant evidence from the hearing on that motion. In the early morning hours of July 30, 2000, two 7-Eleven stores in Prince George’s County were robbed, at gunpoint, ■within an hour of each other.

Petitioner was arrested at 4:10 that morning as a suspect in both robberies. The arrest occurred after a high speed chase that culminated in petitioner’s losing control of his car and crashing into a brick wall. Unfazed by the collision, he exited the car and fled on foot. The arrest was effected when a police dog discovered him hiding in some bushes and bit him on the left shoulder and right forearm.

Upon his apprehension, petitioner was transported by ambulance to Prince George’s County Hospital, where his wounds were bandaged and he was given a painkiller. While at the hospital, petitioner told Officer Corridean, who had made the arrest, that his name was Allan Williams, and he gave an address and date of birth. Upon petitioner’s discharge from the hospital, Corridean transported him, still clad in a hospital gown, to a county police station, where he was turned over to Detectives Thrift and Cheeks, of the robbery unit. Corridean informed the detectives that the suspect’s name was Allan Williams and delivered to them the property petitioner had on his person — approximately $400 in cash and a pay stub.

The pay stub was for a Reccardo Williams, whom petitioner said was his brother. At about 9:25 a.m., petitioner was placed in an interview room located within the robbery unit. Ten minutes later, Thrift entered the interview room and conducted an “initial ⁴⁰⁹ interview.” He obtained a name — Allan Williams — date of birth, address and other pertinent information from petitioner. Thrift testified that, although he detected the odor of alcohol, petitioner “understood everything that was going on.” Thrift left the interrogation room to obtain verifying information from the computer, but the computer system was not functioning.

He then spoke with the officers who had transported petitioner. Thrift reentered the interrogation room with an Advice of Rights and Waiver (ARW) form. He stated that he wanted to get petitioner’s side of the story, read the ARW form to petitioner, and had petitioner put his initials next to each right, as it was read to him, in order to affirm that he understood those rights. Petitioner said that he was willing to waive them, and, at 10:30 a.m., he signed the ARW form.

Questioning then began concerning the two 7-Eleven armed robberies. Petitioner quickly confessed orally to both robberies but declined to write a statement because his body hurt and his right hand was taped. With his consent, Thrift began writing his statement concerning the first 7-Eleven robbery at 10:35 a.m. — the questions posed and the answers given. Petitioner initialed each answer and also signed the bottom of each page.

As he began to sign the bottom of the third page, he wrote an “R” but then scratched it out and signed his name as “Allan [Williams].” At no time did petitioner indicate that he did not want to talk to Thrift or that he wanted to speak with an attorney. When the first statement was completed, Thrift took a break and checked the name Allan Williams in the computer. There was an Allan Williams, but the information pertaining to that person did not match the information provided by petitioner. Thrift then entered the name Reccardo Williams — the name on the pay stub taken from petitioner— and, although the date of birth for Reccardo Williams did not match that given by petitioner, there was a physical description provided that did match.

The information obtained also revealed that Reccardo Williams was wanted for three homi ⁴¹⁰ cides in Prince George’s County — those involving John Cook, Curtis Pelt, and Naroldo Sterling. After searching the database, Thrift went back to the interrogation room to obtain a statement concerning the second 7-Eleven robbery. At 11:40 a.m., Thrift began to write the suspect’s second statement, which was taken in the same manner as the first one. Petitioner initialed next to each written answer and signed the bottom of each page.

At no time while giving this second statement did petitioner indicate that he did not want to speak with Thrift or that he wanted an attorney. Nor did Thrift make any threats, promises, or inducements. Upon completion of the second statement, petitioner asked for.a soda and, after complying with his request, Thrift, at about 1:13 p.m., turned petitioner over to Detective Wilson of the homicide unit. Wilson was the lead detective investigating the July 21, 2000 murders of Cook and Pelt.

He was aware that Williams had been arrested in the early morning hours and had been treated at the hospital for his injuries. Wilson also discovered that an arrest warrant had been issued for petitioner concerning the murder of Sterling, the case now before us. Williams was transported from the robbery unit to the homicide unit and placed in an interview room, which was an area that was, at best, 8 feet by 8 feet. It had carpeting on the floor and walls, one door with a peephole but no windows and no access to a bathroom.

Petitioner’s handcuffs were removed. After petitioner declined an offer of food and drink, Wilson left the room for a few minutes. When Wilson returned to the interview room at 1:23 p.m., he asked the petitioner if he had been drinking or had used any drugs the night before, to which he responded in the' negative. Wilson said petitioner “appeared very calm in my initial contact with him.

He did not appear to be under the influence of anything.” He never complained to Wilson about his injuries or about being in pain. Although Wilson was aware that petitioner had been read his Miranda rights, he asked him to repeat what he remem ⁴¹¹ bered his rights to be. After petitioner completed the recitation, Wilson informed him that he had the right to answer questions without a lawyer and that he could stop the questioning at any time and request an attorney. Satisfied that petitioner understood his rights, Wilson began questioning him about the Cook and Pelt shootings.

After petitioner was told that there was “undeniable proof” of his complicity in those shootings, petitioner lowered his head, began to cry, and admitted to the murders. Although Wilson lied about the evidence against petitioner, he never made any threats, promises, or inducements in order to obtain the confession. After his admission, petitioner asked for a drink and Wilson left to get him a soda at 3:46 p.m. Upon his return to the interview room, Wilson said that he had been advised by another detective that petitioner had been identified by witnesses in the Sterling murder case, whereupon petitioner orally confessed to that murder as well, explaining it as a botched robbery attempt.

He then informed Wilson that he was hungry, and Wilson left the room and asked another detective to get some food. Wilson provided the food at 5:24 p.m., and at 6:10 p.m., petitioner used the bathroom. Upon petitioner’s return to the interview room, Wilson asked Detective Bernard Nelson to obtain a written statement from him. Nelson was aware that petitioner had been in custody since about 4:00 a.m. and that he had been injured in a car accident.

Nelson entered the interview room at 6:31 p.m., found petitioner lying on the floor, and asked if he would sit in a chair so they could discuss the shootings being investigated by the police. Nelson presented him with an ARW form, determined that he could read and write English, had him read several lines, and then read the form to him. Petitioner waived his Miranda rights at 6:38 p.m. Nelson told petitioner that a witness had identified him in the Sterling shooting and that he needed to start off “on the right foot” by telling his side of the story.

Petitioner confessed to Nelson and agreed to provide a written statement. At ⁴¹² no time did petitioner indicate that his body or hand hurt or that he could not write. Nelson gave him paper and a pencil and left the room. When he looked back in at 7:10 p.m., he noticed that petitioner was not writing.

Nelson reentered the room and asked why petitioner was not writing; petitioner said he did not know. Nelson told him that his side of the story needed to be written so his story would not get “twisted.” Petitioner then began to write a statement at 7:40 p.m. At his request, he was provided with a cigarette and some water. An hour after petitioner began writing, he knocked on the door and indicated to Nelson that he had finished his statement.

Nelson then entered the room, read the statement, and engaged in a question and answer session with petitioner. Nelson would write the question, and then write petitioner’s response. Petitioner also drew a picture of the set-up of the house where the Sterling shooting took place and indicated his route through the house. Nelson’s notes indicated that petitioner was provided with a cigarette at 9:15 p.m. and that at 9:17, he was asked if he wanted anything to eat, to which he replied in the negative.

This question and answer period concluded at 9:57 p.m. At 9:58 p.m., petitioner began writing a 10-page statement about the Cook/Pelt shootings. At 10:10 p.m., he was provided with a cigarette and a soda, and at 10:44 p.m. he knocked on the door to indicate that he was finished writing the second statement. At 10:46 p.m., Nelson reentered the interview room and asked petitioner four follow-up questions about the Sterling shooting, finishing at 10:53 p.m.

Nelson then asked follow-up questions concerning the Cook/Pelt shootings, finishing at 12:13 a.m. on July 31, 2000. Petitioner reviewed and initialed the answers on both the Sterling and Cook/Pelt shooting follow-up statements, completing this task at 12:20 a.m. Shortly after that, Nelson left to go home. Petitioner remained in the interview room. ■ At 7:00 the next morning, Detective Michael Bums, who had been assigned to the Sterling shooting, arrived for work and ⁴¹³ found petitioner lying on the floor of the interview room.

The log sheet on the outside of the interview room indicated that petitioner had not been interviewed since midnight. Burns entered the interview room at 8:50 a.m., introduced himself, offered petitioner the opportunity to use the bathroom, and gave petitioner breakfast. He took note that petitioner “was injured, his bottom lip was puffed out, and he was in a white hospital gown.” Burns asked petitioner about his injuries and asked him if he had received any medication and if he was in pain. Petitioner said that he had been given a painkiller the night before and that he did not need any additional medication.

Bums then left the room to read over the statements petitioner had made to Detectives Nelson and Wilson. At 10:21 a.m., Burns entered the interview room and, without any additional advice as to his Miranda rights, began questioning petitioner about the Sterling murder. Bums questioned petitioner about who was with him when the Sterling shooting occurred. Although at first reluctant, petitioner eventually gave Burns a lengthy oral statement regarding the shooting in this case, and named an accomplice, “Cash,” a/k/a James Green.

At 12:39 p.m., Burns and his sergeant took petitioner in a police van to look for Green’s residence at the Kent Village Apartments. Petitioner was still wearing the hospital gown. At 12:50 p.m., having failed to locate Green’s residence, Bums returned petitioner to the police station and provided him with lunch. At 1:04 p.m., petitioner made a photographic identification of Green and then ate his lunch.

After lunch, petitioner asked to speak with Detective Nelson. At 3:39 p.m., Nelson entered the interview room. Petitioner said that he had not told him the entire truth about the Sterling murder. He asked Nelson to have Detective Burns reenter the room so he could tell them the names of the other individuals who were involved.

Petitioner then provided the additional information and agreed to provide another written statement. Prior to giving the statement, petitioner was ⁴¹⁴ taken to the bathroom, given another cigarette, and offered food. At 4:08 p.m., after declining the food offer, petitioner began to write his statement. At no time did he indicate that he was in any pain.

After petitioner completed his nine-page statement, Nelson conducted a follow-up written question and answer session. Petitioner placed his initials next to each answer and signed the bottom of every page of the statement. At 5:03 p.m., he was given another cigarette; the entire statement was completed at 5:51 p.m. At 6:17 p.m., petitioner declined an offer of dinner.

At 7:15 p.m., he was provided with a cigarette and at 7:30 p.m., he asked to call his girlfriend, which he was permitted to do. At 8:30 p.m., Nelson took petitioner to “District 3” for “processing.” He was not presented to a District Court Commissioner until 3:07 a.m. on August 1, 2000, some 47 hours after his arrest. Upon his indictment, petitioner moved to suppress the various statements he had made, claiming that they were involuntary. Altogether, five written statements were at issue: (1) the statement regarding the first 7-Eleven robbery that was begun at 10:35 a.m. on July 30; (2) the statement regarding the second 7-Eleven robbery that was begun at 11:40 that morning; (3) the statement concerning the Sterling murder that was begun, finally, at 7:40 p.m. on July 30; (4) the statement concerning the Pelt/Cook murders that was begun at 9:58 p.m. on July 30; and (5) the last statement, concerning the Sterling murder, begun at 4:08 p.m. on July 31.

The court denied the motion. It recognized that the 47-hour delay in presentment was one of the factors to be considered in determining the overall voluntariness of the statements but ultimately concluded that “delay in presentation in this particular case was not actually caused by coercive contact, but actually, to the contrary, the fact that the defendant was cooperating in so many cases and providing them with fruitful information, that the police were basically taking advantage of striking while the iron was hot....” In reaching that conclusion, the court considered that, over a nine-hour ⁴¹⁵ period, petitioner had made five written statements, all after receiving appropriate Miranda warnings and all after any requests for food, drink, or bathroom visits had been granted. The court did not find conclusive the fact that, at one point, petitioner admitted to having consumed a pint of cognac, noting that he was lucid enough to give a false name. All five statements were admitted into evidence, along with testimony from Detectives Thrift, Wilson, Nelson, and Bums concerning the statements.

The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that “the length of time the appellant was questioned did not coerce the statements from him.” Williams v. State, Ct. of Spec. Appeals of Md., No. 671, Sept. Term 2001, unreported opinion at 23. DISCUSSION Introduction Petitioner makes two basic arguments. First, he contends that, although the statute may serve to preclude suppression of a confession solely because of a violation of the time requirement of the presentment rule, it does not preclude suppression where the violation is not merely an incidental one.

He argues that where “the facts of a case show that police chose to delay presentment unnecessarily, and to deliberately flout the rule in order to interrogate a defendant, a court has the authority under the statute to suppress the statement for violation of the rule, even where the resulting statements meet the traditional test of voluntariness under the common law or constitution.” We reject that argument. The test under the statute, and under the Constitution, remains voluntariness. Deliberate violations of the rule, as we shall explain, bear heavily on whether a resulting statement is voluntary, but they do not, of themselves, form an independent basis for rendering inadmissible a statement that is otherwise voluntary and admissible. To conclude otherwise would be tantamount to ignoring the ⁴¹⁶ statute, which, in the absence of some Constitutional defect, we are not permitted to do.

Petitioner also argues that the court erred in finding the statements to be voluntary. He pieces together the delay and the circumstances of the delay, and, characterizing his stay in the homicide unit interrogation room as “unacceptably coercive and inhumane,” contends that, “[i]f it is not unreasonably coercive to delay presentment of an injured defendant for nearly two days, to keep him in a windowless room clad only in a hospital gown, with his only rest on the floor, and to do so solely for the purpose of creating a coercive atmosphere in which to obtain a confession, then the prompt presentment rule is truly meaningless, and the due process limitations on interrogation, a sham.” Although possessing more than a grain of truth, that statement stretches the facts a bit and, for that reason, is unacceptable. We do believe, however, that the trial court gave insufficient weight to the continued and unlawful detention of petitioner following his statements regarding the two robberies. We shall conclude that, while the statute makes a delay in presentment only one factor in determining voluntariness and admissibility, not all factors that may weigh on voluntariness are necessarily equal in import, and that, when the delay is not only violative of the Rule but deliberate and designed for the sole purpose of soliciting a confession, it must be given very heavy weight.

There is no indication that, with respect to the statements regarding the three murders, the trial court gave the continued delay such weight. When we do so, it becomes clear that those latter statements were involuntary and therefore inadmissible. Derivation of the Rule and the Statute As far back as 1893, the Court held, as a matter of common law, that, when officers made an arrest, “[i]t was their duty at once to take the offender before a justice of the peace, to be dealt with according to the direction of the statute.” Twilley ⁴¹⁷ v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265 , 26 A. 286 , 289 (1893) (emphasis added). Three years later, in Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 405 , 35 A. 1089, 1091 (1896), the Court observed that, “[fjrom the earliest dawn of the common law,” a constable who had properly arrested a person “was authorized to detain the suspected party such a reasonable length of time as would enable him to carry the accused before a magistrate,” and confirmed, as beyond cavil, that “it becomes the duty of the officer or the individual making the arrest to convey the prisoner in a reasonable time and without unnecessary delay, before a magistrate to be dealt with as the exigency of the case may require.” Id. at 407 , 35 A. at 1092 .

We observed in Johnson v. State, 282 Md. 314, 319-20 , 384 A.2d 709, 712 (1978), that common law duty, invoked in the context of civil cases for false imprisonment, had spawned legislation, applicable in Baltimore City and Montgomery County, guaranteeing suspects in criminal cases the right of prompt presentment, and that, upon the creation of the District Court in 1971, we incorporated that right into the first Maryland District Rules and thus made it Statewide in application. We noted that, as initially drafted, the Rule that first became Maryland District Rule 709a. tracked the then-current version of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require presentment before a judicial officer “without unnecessary delay,” but that, in the course of development, it was modified. As adopted, it stated a two-part requirement: “A defendant shall be taken before a conveniently available judicial officer without unnecessary delay and in no event later than the earlier of (1) twenty-four hours after arrest or (2) the first session of court after the defendant’s arrest upon a warrant, or, where the arrest has been made without a warrant, the first session of court after the charging of the defendant. Such charging shall take place promptly after arrest.” With but minor style changes, that Rule was in place, as Maryland District Rule 723a., when Johnson was decided.

Johnson was arrested at 3:15 p.m. in connection with the armed robbery of a supermarket. Upon his arrival at the ⁴¹⁸ police station he was given Miranda warnings but, because he complained of stomach pains and exhibited a poor physical appearance, interrogation was postponed and he spent the night in a lockup cell. At 9:45 the next morning, following a written waiver of his rights, he was interrogated for about six hours, culminating in a ten-page written statement. The statement was signed at 3:45 p.m., following which, at about 4:00, he was taken before a District Court Commissioner.

There clearly was a violation of the Rule — not only was the presentment outside the 24 hour limit but, we concluded, it was not without unnecessary delay. The evidence established, we said, that the police “deliberately postponed presentment of appellant for the purpose of subjecting him to further interrogation.” Id. at 330 , 384 A.2d at 718 . The question was whether the violation served to make the confession inadmissible. In that regard, the State made a number of arguments.

First, it urged that the Rule was merely directory-“guidelines for the disposition of defendants upon arrest.” Id. at 320 , 384 A.2d at 713 . We rejected that argument, in part because the Rule was cast in mandatory language, and as well because we viewed the requirement of prompt presentment before a neutral judicial officer as “a sine qua non in any scheme of civil liberties.” Id. at 321 , 384 A.2d at 713 . Presentment, we said, serves four vital functions: the determination of whether sufficient probable cause exists for continued detention; determination of eligibility for pre-trial release; informing the accused of the charges against him, his right to counsel, and, if indigent, his right to appointed counsel; and, if the charge is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court, his right to a preliminary hearing. Id. at 321-22 , 384 A.2d at 713 .

It thus serves to implement a number of Federal and State Constitutional rights possessed by an accused-to be informed of the charges against him, to be free from unreasonable seizures of his person, to have the assistance of counsel, and to be free from coercive investigatory methods. Noting that only one State — Arkansas—had held a similar rule to be directory only, ⁴¹⁹ we held that the Rule was mandatory. Id. at 322-23 , 384 A.2d at 714 . We then considered the State’s further argument that, even if the Rule was mandatory, we should not attach an exclusionary rule to it, as the Supreme Court had done with respect to the analogous Federal rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943) and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), but should instead adopt the approach then chosen by the majority of the States and apply a general voluntariness standard to statements obtained in violation of the Rule.

Id. at 323-25, 384 A.2d at 714-15 . Believing, as some other States did, that the general voluntariness standard was inadequate to safeguard the right of prompt presentment, we concluded that “the exclusionary rule is perhaps the most effective and practical means of curbing lawless police conduct when it impinges upon fundamental legal and constitutional rights of a criminal defendant.” Id. at 326 , 384 A.2d at 716 . We pointed out that the exclusionary rule was particularly effective as a deterrent when applied to custodial interrogations, “since police activity at this stage in the investigation is likely to be aimed at procuring evidence for use at trial.” Id. Having proceeded to that point, we addressed two further arguments posited by the State — that we should limit any exclusionary rule and apply it only if (1) the defendant could demonstrate that he was “unfairly prejudiced” by the police conduct, or (2) the violation of the Rule was “substantial” — i.e., gross, wilful, and prejudicial, or was of a kind likely to mislead the accused as to his legal rights or to have influenced his decision to make a statement, or created a significant risk of untrustworthiness.

Id. at 327 , 384 A.2d at 716-17 . We rejected those offerings. The prejudice prong, we suggested, “would encumber the defendant with the well-nigh insurmountable burden of showing that detention was deliberately prolonged in order to extract a confession,” and the alternative approach would “significantly and unnecessarily complicate and confuse admissibility determinations by requiring trial courts to apply criteria which are themselves not susceptible ⁴²⁰ of precise definition.” Id. at 327-28 , 384 A.2d at 717 . Instead, we concluded that protection of the right of prompt presentment was best assured by a per se exclusionary rule and thus held that a statement “is automatically excludible if, at the time it was obtained from the defendant, he had not been produced before a commissioner for his initial appearance within the earlier of 24 hours after arrest or the first session of court following arrest, irrespective of the reason for delay.” Id. at 329 , 384 A.2d at 717 .

With respect to delays within the 24-hour period, we said that it was incumbent on the trial court to determine whether the State had met its burden of showing that the delay was necessary under the circumstances, and, borrowing from Mallory v. United States, supra, and other sources, we gave examples of situations in which a delay would be regarded as necessary: “(1) to carry out reasonable routine administrative procedures such as recording, fingerprinting and photographing; (2) to determine whether a charging document should be issued accusing the arrestee of a crime; (3) to verify the commission of the crimes specified in the charging document; (4) to obtain information likely to be a significant aid in averting harm to persons or loss to property of substantial value; (5) to obtain relevant nontestimonial information likely to be significant in discovering the identity or location of other persons who may be associated with the arrestee in the commission of the offense for which he was apprehended, or in preventing the loss, alteration or destruction of evidence relating to such crime.” Johnson, supra, at 329 , 384 A.2d at 717 . We noted further that a truly spontaneous threshold statement uttered at or shortly after the time of arrest would not be excludible on the ground that the police subsequently failed to act diligently because, in that event, there would be no connection between the delay and the statement. Id. at 329 , 384 A.2d at 718 . At the next (1979) session of the General Assembly, bills were introduced- into both Houses to modify our ruling. ⁴²¹ Aware that our Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure was considering amendments to Maryland District Rule 723a., however, the Senate killed both bills.

In fact, the amendment being considered by the Rules Committee, which was ultimately adopted by us, did not have the effect of overturning our conclusion that the prompt presentment requirement of Maryland District Rule 723a. was mandatory and that it was to be enforced through a per se exclusionary rule. The concern was over the “first session of court” language, which the Rules Committee suggested might require the police to take the defendant immediately before a District Court judge if court was in session at the time of arrest and thus not permit any delay at all. As District Court Commissioners were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there was no need for the “first session of court” requirement. Its deletion would preserve the test of unnecessary delay and the 24-hour outside limit.

See Sixty-Fourth Report of the