Opinion ID: 1485726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The In-Custody Oral Admissions

Text: This case bears a striking similarity to Miller v. State, 251 Md. 362, 247 A.2d 530, recently decided, by this Court. In Miller, there was the more serious charge of murder and the sixteen year old defendant was tried as an adult, however, the circumstances surrounding the in-custody interrogation, and the interrogation itself, are remarkably parallel to the instant case. The reliance of the youthful defendants in both cases on Miranda and Gault and this Court's measuring of Miller in relation to Miranda and Gault, warrants a retelling of the facts of Miller, for what we did in Miller must be reflected in our opinion in this case. In Miller the sixteen year old suspect was taken from his ninth grade classroom in Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, at 2:00 P.M. by a Pennsylvania State Trooper and a probation officer. to the Meyersdale City Council room. There he was turned over to a Maryland State Trooper and the criminal investigator for Allegany County, Maryland. The Miranda warnings were read to him and he was questioned for an hour and 35 minutes but denied any complicity in the crime. A physical examination was also made of his person to determine whether he had sustained any recent bruises, abrasions or scratches. He was then turned over to the Sheriff of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and was given a snack to eat. The Maryland officers left to travel to the suspect's home and enroute were contacted by the sheriff and notified to return to his office as the suspect stated he wanted to tell the truth. The Maryland officers returned and again read the Miranda warnings to the suspect a second time. The second interrogation, during which the oral confession was made, lasted one hour and 55 minutes. The suspect refused to sign the statement until he had had an opportunity to speak with his parents. The suspect had made no prior request to contact his parents and the police officers had made no attempt either to contact the parents or notify them as to the whereabouts of their son. At no time did the appellant ask for an attorney. He had stated that he understood what his constitutional rights were, when they had been read to him. During the latter part of the suspect's interrogation his parents, after finding out from a source other than the police officers as to the whereabouts of their son, had come to the sheriff's office and were waiting in another area. About 25 minutes after the suspect had given his inculpatory statement they were allowed to see him whereupon acting on their advice the suspect refused to sign his statement. In the instant case, as in Miller, the Miranda warnings were read to the appellant and he stated that he understood them. In the instant case, as in Miller, the appellant did not wish, at first, to make a statement but subsequently had a change of mind and informed those in charge of custody that he wished to make a statement, at which time the Miranda warnings were read a second time. In the instant case, as in Miller, there is no evidence of any prolonged or grueling questioning, physical abuse, threats of physical abuse or other form of intimidation, nor were any inducements offered. In contrast to Miller, in the instant case, the mother of the appellant knew when her son was taken into custody, by whom he had been taken into custody and where he was being taken. In contrast to Miller, after the first reading of the Miranda warnings and before any statements had been made, the police officer asked the appellant whether he wished to contact his parents, and in further contrast, the appellant after deciding to make an inculpatory statement, requested that he be allowed to telephone his mother and made the call. Judge Marbury speaking for the Court in Miller said: Appellant's main argument urges that the State has failed to discharge its heavy burden imposed by Miranda to prove that the individual in custody `knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.' As defined in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), waiver of a fundamental constitutional right is usually `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of ... [which] must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.' 304 U.S. at 464. However, a statement by the accused that he fully understands and waives his rights is not an essential link in the chain of proof. Waiver may be shown by the attendant circumstances. United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1006 (1968); Brown v. State, 3 Md. App. 313, 239 A.2d 761.    At the beginning of this interview, the officers again informed Miller of his constitutional rights. When Mr. Baker asked: `In view of these facts [warnings], do you wish to give a statement and answer my questions?' The appellant responded `Yes sir.' We are aware that the Supreme Court has emphasized that admissions of juveniles require special caution. E.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Haley v. Ohio, supra. However, the appellant agreeing to give a statement coupled with the attendant circumstances, that is, the proper constitutional warnings at the beginning of each questioning period, no allegations of any police misconduct, and appellant's own request for the interview when he gave his inculpatory statement, persuade this Court that the appellant, after careful and deliberate consideration, waived his constitutional privileges, and made his statement voluntarily. A further important objection to the admissibility of the statement appears to be the appellant's age. This Court and the Court of Special Appeals have held that the age of an appellant, in itself, does not render a confession involuntary. E.g., Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870; Bean v. State, 234 Md. 432, 199 A.2d 773; State v. Hance, 2 Md. App. 162, 233 A.2d 326; Harris v. State, 1 Md. App. 318, 229 A.2d 604.   . The appellant in this case further contends that Gault extended Miranda warnings to pre-trial custodial interrogation in juvenile proceedings; assuming, arguendo, that it does, there was compliance with it in this case on two different occasions. See In Re Creek, 243 A.2d 49 (1968) and Leach v. Texas, 428 S.W.2d 817 (1968). We emphasize that the Miranda warnings were repeated twice in this case because in People v. Hill, 233 N.E.2d 367, 371 (1968), the Supreme Court of Illinois made it clear that,    once Miranda's mandate was complied with at the threshold of the questioning it was not necessary to repeat the warnings at the beginning of each successive interview.   . We also cite Hill, supra, as the reason it was not necessary to repeat the Miranda warnings a third time when the appellant was having his conversation with Corporal Jews, there having been no significant lapse of time or change in environment from the first and second rendition of the warnings. Viewing the facts and circumstances surrounding the in-custody interrogation in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. The appellant relying on Gault, also argues that he was denied due process of law because the record does not affirmatively show that his mother was advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and have the assistance of counsel during interrogation. We do not think that Gault holds that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that in juvenile proceedings the parents must be notified of the child's rights to be represented by counsel retained by them or, if they are indigent, by court appointed counsel, extends to pre-trial custodial interrogation of the juvenile. Nor do we think that Gault requires that the parent be advised of the right of the juvenile to remain silent at a pre-trial custodial interrogation. In the instant case the appellant at the juvenile proceedings was given all of the protection mandated by Gault.