Young v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William Edward Young, the appellant, complains of convictions of murder and assault with intent to commit rape in a trial before John N. Maguire sitting without a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He claims that his formal statement should not have been admitted into evidence; that a verbal admission should not have been admitted into evidence; and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

The evidence showed that Elizabeth Roddy, the deceased victim, a 72 year old female, resided in a first floor apartment at 877 Park Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. She was last seen alive by Mary Wallace, 865 Park Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland,, at approximately 3:45 P.M. on Friday, October 14, 1966, at the front door of 877 Park Avenue. On Saturday, October 15, 1966, about 6:00 A.M. the body was discovered by George Berse, a janitor and maintenance man at 877 Park Avenue, on the hallway floor of her apartment. Elizabeth Roddy’s body was found lying in a pool of blood.

Her slip and housecoat had been pulled up around the upper ²⁸⁸ portion of her body while her panties had been partially ripped. An examination of her apartment revealed that the front door had not been physically forced open, and that a portion of several rooms had been ransacked. The medical examiner’s report, which was admitted into evidence by stipulation of counsel, stated that Elizabeth Roddy was a homicide victim. The report showed that she had been beaten about the head by multiple blunt force impacts causing severe skull fractures, cerebral contusions and hemorrhages.

There was a superficial laceration and contusion to the entrance of her vagina; however, no spermatozoa was found. The injuries occurred, according to the report, between 3 :00 P.M. on October 14 and 6:10 A.M. on October 15. From the condition of her clothing, injury to her vagina and the “toxicological findings,” the report concluded that a sexual attack had at least been attempted. When the court called the medical examiner as a witness, he explained that a chemical examination of the washings from the vagina were positive — indicating a high degree of probability that “seminal fluid had been there but not necessarily a complete ejaculation.” David Rochester, 869 Park Avenue, testified that on October 14, 1966 at about 11:00 P.M. Young rang his front door bell .and asked for a man named “John.” William Schnieder, 871 Park Avenue, testified that on October 14, at about 11:00 P.M. .someone rang his front door bell but that he could not identify the person since he did not go to the door.

Russell Panzarella, ■865 Park Avenue, testified that an unidentified white man rang the bell at his apartment house at about 11:00 P.M. October 14, 1966 and asked for “Frank,” and that he admitted him saying that Frank Buchwitz lived on the third floor. Mary Wallace, •865 Park Avenue, testified that on October 14, at about 10:45 P.M. she saw Young walking down the steps from the second floor to the first floor of her apartment building, and that he left via the front door; and that on October 20, 1966, at about 3 :45 P.M. she saw Young for the second time when he rang her front door bell and asked for someone named “Frank.” Pauline Prendergast, 867 Park Avenue, testified that on October 20, 1966, at 3:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. she saw Young at the front door to her apartment building, and her aunt called ²⁸⁹ the police. When the police arrived at Read Street and Park Avenue, a half block from Pauline Prendergast’s residence, they saw Young standing on the northwest corner; they asked him his name and what he was doing at that place. Young stated his name and that he was looking for “Frank, a man who sells clothes.” The police thereupon took him into custody and drove him to the Central District Police Station arriving about 4:45 P.M. At the police station he was interrogated promptly by Lt.

Cadden. Some of the testimony as to the questioning is as follows : “A Well, I told him that we were investigating the case of homicide, and so forth, a woman that was found slain in her home. She had been sexually molested. He had a right not to discuss the situation.

He had a right to remain silent. If he desired, he could get a lawyer of his own choosing. If he couldn’t afford a lawyer, we were obliged to obtain a lawyer for him. He was advised that anything he said to us would be used against him in a Court of law.

We wanted to call his parents. He pleaded with us not to. He stated his mother was ill with a heart condition and he had a great fear of his dad. “Q Where did you have this discussion about calling his parents ? “A As soon as he was brought in. “Q Before any of this interrogation began ? “A Yes. “Q What was his response to that ? “A Please don’t bother them. He constantly pleaded with us repeatedly. ‘M'y mother is quite ill.

She had a heart seizure. It is my bankbook.’ He pays his own board. They did nothing. He had a great fear of his dad.

He never explained that. “Q When you told him he didn’t have to say anything, what did he tell you about that ? “A He said he had nothing to say about it. He didn’t need a lawyer. He had money and he didn’t do anything. ²⁹⁰ “Q What, if anything, did you say to him when he said that ? “A He said he didn’t need a lawyer. He said T don’t need a lawyer.’ verbatim. “Q When you said he could have a lawyer, what type of response did you get ? “A We told him if he couldn’t afford an attorney, we were obliged to get an attorney.

We showed him this piece of paper that we carry. We read it there. Voluntariness of confession. Miranda versus State of Arizona.

We are obliged to get him an attorney before proceeding. “Q You said you had this form ? “A Yes, it is put into all folders without statement, after admonishing. “Q You gave that to him to read for himself? “A Yes. MR. CARDIN: The State will offer this form that the officer uses as Exhibit No. 3.” Exhibit No. 3 reads as follows: “June 21,1966 VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONS IN VIEW OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MIRANDA v. ARIZONA “In addition to the traditional tests of voluntariness, i.e., that statements of the defendant may not be the product of threats, coercion, duress, promise of reward or of any other improper inducements, Mirmda requires that prior to any interrogation, persons ‘in-custody’ must be advised of the following: (1) ‘that he has the right to remain silent’; (2) ‘that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law’; (3) ‘that he has the right to the presence of an attorney,’ and (4) ‘that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning, if he so desires.’ ” At that time Young refused to make any statement so he was fed and placed in a cell until 8:00 P.M. when he was placed in a ²⁹¹ lineup. After he was identified by several of the witnesses at the lineup he began to cry and made a remark which caused the officers to call Lt.

Cadden. “Q You said you admonished him again? “A Yes, as to his rights again, very thoroughly. “Q You are using the word again because of the prior interrogation ? “A Yes, I advised him, and told him he could remain silent. He didn’t need to say anything further. He had a right to an attorney and we would get an attorney if he had no means to obtain an attorney. He was told that whatever he said there was going to be used in Court and anything further that he said would be used against him in Court. “Q What did he say to this ? “A He was crying, very vigorously, T swear to God I didn’t mean to kill her.

And, I didn’t rape her.’ Wherein, he said molest, he didn’t say rape. He said molest. And the medical examiner told us about this. Wherein he said he didn’t rape her and he didn’t mean to kill her and he was upset about it.

We asked him if he desired to tell the story, if he desired to give a statement, and he said he did. He would tell the story. “Q Do you recall what you said at that time ? “A I, again I told him, did he want to give a statement and he said yes. At that time, we prepared a paper to put in the typewriter. We started in on our routine questions, name, age, extent of education, his address, whether he could read or write, he began to relate the crime and I again admonished him as to his rights again.

That is in the statement. He told us that he wouldn’t sign the thing. I remember that. “Q Let me ask you this. How many times in total did you admonish this man ? “A Three or four times, sir. “Q And the first time was when ? “A When he was brought in by my men about 4:45 that afternoon.

Then I told him as I was interviewing him regarding his presence in that area. I asked him ²⁹² how many times- — -this was 4:45 — and he told me several times the prior week, which was the week of the 16th. From the 9th to the 16th, and we got to Friday might, when he told us he was in that area about the 'time, about ten or 11:00 o’clock, the prior Friday might, the 14th, and I admonished him then. “Q This was the first time ? “A That’s right. “Q When was the second time you admonished him ? “A When he came out of the line-up room. And he related to me what he stated, as he was conveyed from 'the line-up room, I admonished him again.

Then again in the statement, three times, actually. “Q You admonished him three times ? “A Yes.” * * =i= “Q (Mr. Cardin) Lieutenant Cadden, specifically, what, if anything, did Mr. Young say to you with regard to an attorney ? “A He told me that he didn’t want an attorney at first. At first, he didn’t do anything. After the lineup, when he made certain statements, I again admonished him that he may request a lawyer — I was quite •emphatic. I must be emphatic in a matter such as this is, sir. “Q When you say you were emphatic, go a little further. “A Well, he could call an attorney if he so desired.

He could call his parents. He cried ‘Oh, my God, no, no, no, don’t call. My mother is sick. Oh, God’ and he went on sobbing and we told him we were obliged to get an attorney for him if he so desired. “Q What did he say to that ? “A He didn’t want an attorney.

He never accepted this, or the response. “Q What, if anything, did he say to you when you told him that whatever he said would be used against him in Court ? ²⁹³ “A He said he understood this. I read him from the original sheet after I submitted it to him. AVe have to do this. AVe explain to these people regardless.” “Q AVhen he was first arrested and you knew he was arrested and you were going to interrogate him about this homicide and rape and burglary, is there any reason why you yourself didn’t telephone them and tell him where he was held ? “A He stressed the fact that he was independent, that he had his own bankbook, he showed us that, with a considerable amount of money, $5,000, and he said he was independent, all he did was sleep home.

That he didn’t want anybody. At first he was pretty arrogant. At first he didn’t need anybody, he didn’t want to call his parents.” Officer John Lewandowski testified as follows : “Q (Mr. Freedman) Now, when the interrogation began at approximately 4:45 or five p.m. on the 20th of October, you were present at the beginning, weren’t you? “A Yes, I was. “Q AVho did the talking to start with ? “A Lieutenant Cadden.