Lovelace v. State
78 A.3d 449
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- On April 1, 2008 Demetrius D. Lovelace was arrested after Alan Zurita was killed during an encounter in a car involving Lovelace and Damon Jackson; Jackson shot Zurita. Lovelace was indicted on multiple counts including first-degree murder (later limited to felony murder).
- At the suppression hearing Lovelace invoked his Miranda right to remain silent during an initial 1:15 p.m. interview, then (within ~10 minutes) continued talking, was re-advised of Miranda, signed a waiver, and gave recorded statements later that day. Police testified they did not question him during the interval and that Lovelace reinitiated conversation.
- At trial the jury convicted Lovelace of first-degree felony murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy, possession of a firearm (felon), and related counts; the court merged some counts and sentenced him to life without parole plus concurrent/consecutive terms; restitution was ordered.
- Lovelace appealed raising four issues: denial of the motion to suppress statements, failure to merge armed robbery into felony murder for sentencing, failure to follow up during voir dire with a juror who responded to a panel question, and admission of a family photograph of the victim.
- The court affirmed the denial of suppression (finding Lovelace reinitiated conversation and knowingly waived Miranda), held the armed-robbery sentence must be vacated because the underlying felony merges into felony murder, rejected plain-error relief on the voir dire omission, and upheld admission of the victim photograph.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lovelace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were post-invocation statements admissible (Miranda/suppression)? | Statements admissible because Lovelace reinitiated conversation, was re-advised, and knowingly waived rights. | Police failed to "scrupulously honor" his invocation (Mosley): no break in communication and too short a lapse before waiver. | Held: No error — Lovelace reinitiated, waived knowingly; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Should robbery with a dangerous weapon merge into felony murder for sentencing? | (State concedes) merger required; remedy vacate armed-robbery sentence only. | Merger required; double punishment barred because felony murder contains the elements of the underlying felony. | Held: Conviction stands but sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon vacated (merged into felony murder). |
| Did trial court err by not following up with juror who stood in response to panel question? | No prejudicial error; defendant failed to show actual bias; plain-error review inappropriate. | Failure to ask follow-up deprived Lovelace of proper voir dire and may conceal bias. | Held: No reversible/plain error — no showing of actual prejudice; claim rejected. |
| Was admission of a photo of victim with a family member unduly prejudicial? | Photo relevant to identity and to show victim wearing the gold chain recovered from Lovelace; probative value > prejudice. | Photo appealed to sympathy (child/family), was cumulative and prejudicial; should have been cropped or excluded. | Held: No abuse of discretion — trial court did appropriate Rule 5-403 balancing; photo admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (Miranda right to cut off questioning must be "scrupulously honored" when police reinitiate questioning)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous; suspect may reinitiate conversation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (police must cease questioning after a request for counsel unless suspect reinitiates)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (Edwards rule subject to a fourteen-day break-in-custody exception)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (invocation of Miranda rights must be unambiguous; waiver analysis requires totality of circumstances)
- Lee v. State, 418 Md. 136 (Md. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings; waiver must be voluntary and knowing)
- Raras v. State, 140 Md. App. 132 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001) (suspect who reinitiates after invoking rights can validly waive Miranda for subsequent statement)
- Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260 (Md. 1977) (required-evidence test for merger/double jeopardy)
- Borchardt v. State, 367 Md. 91 (Md. 2001) (felony murder and underlying felony merge absent independent proof of premeditation)
- Moore v. State, 198 Md. App. 655 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (where convictions merge under required-evidence test, sentence only imposed for greater offense)