Hill v. State
12 A.3d 1193
| Md. | 2011Background
- Hill was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, second degree sexual offense, and unnatural or perverted sexual practice, with statements to police at issue.
- Police investigated Randy, a minor, who had been in Hill's church Youth Department; Randy recorded a telephone call in which Hill apologized.
- Detective McLaughlin questioned Hill at the police station; the interview followed a recorded phone call and a note Hill had drafted.
- During suppression, the court examined whether McLaughlin’s remark that Randy’s family wanted an apology constituted improper inducement under Hillard.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed denial of suppression; Hill sought certiorari to review whether the statements were involuntary due to inducement.
- The Court held the statements were produced by an improper inducement and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the police inducement improper under Hillard? | Hill | State | Yes; inducement violated Hillard |
| Did Hill rely on the inducement in making the statements? | Hill | State | State failed to prove lack of reliance |
| Should the statements have been suppressed and a new trial ordered? | Hill | State | Yes; suppression affirmed and remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145 (1979) (two-pronged test for improper police inducement)
- Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275 (2001) (improper inducement includes implied promises and protection from prosecution)
- Knight v. State, 381 Md. 517 (2004) (promises by officer to exercise discretion not always inducement; reliance analysis)
- Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494 (1992) (exhortations to tell truth may be permissible; comparative inducement analysis)
- Johnson v. State, 348 Md. 337 (1998) (attenuation and timing affect reliance on inducement)
- Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156 (1997) (mere exhortation to tell the truth not inherently coercive)
- Ralph v. State, 226 Md. 480 (1961) (exhortations regarding truth-telling not necessarily inducements)
- Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581 (1995) (voluntariness factors in suppression analysis)