Savoy v. State
96 A.3d 842
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- On Aug. 1, 2011, Sean Ames was shot and killed outside Troy Harkless’s residence; eyewitnesses Janice Jay and Amber Buschman identified Ottus Savoy as the shooter. Police recovered a handgun on an adjacent roof.
- Savoy was indicted for murder and related handgun offenses; he was arrested Aug. 25, 2011, and interviewed twice after receiving Miranda warnings.
- During the second interview Savoy wrote he would take a plea “if you all can get me 20 to 25 years,” and said he would describe events “in front of the State’s attorney.”
- The trial court admitted photographic arrays (witnesses had also known Savoy previously) and admitted Savoy’s pretrial statements; Savoy did not testify at trial and was convicted of second-degree murder and handgun use.
- On appeal Savoy raised three issues: suppression/admissibility of his statements (plea negotiation and Miranda theories), whether his waiver of the right to testify was knowing (defense counsel misadvised him about impeachment), and admissibility of the photo arrays. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Savoy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pretrial statements — plea negotiation (Md. Rule 5-410) | Statements were part of plea negotiations and thus inadmissible | Rule 5-410 covers plea discussions with prosecuting attorneys, not statements to police | Denied — Rule 5-410 inapplicable because statements were to detectives, not prosecutors |
| Admissibility of pretrial statements — Miranda / invocation of right to silence | Detectives failed to scrupulously honor his invocation of the right to remain silent (Mosley) | Issue was not raised below and therefore waived under Rule 4-252; plain error review unavailable | Waived — appellate plain error review barred by Rule 4-252; no review of Miranda claim |
| Waiver of right to testify (counsel’s erroneous advice about impeachment) | Counsel told Savoy his prior first-degree assault conviction was impeachable; that misinformation prevented a knowing and voluntary waiver | Error originated with defense counsel; Savoy must show detrimental reliance; invited-error/doctrine and post-conviction are appropriate vehicles | No reversible error — advice was facially erroneous but Savoy failed to show he relied on it; trial court not required to intervene absent clear notice |
| Admission of photographic arrays (identifications) | Photos prejudiced Savoy because they likely were perceived as mug shots and added nothing given witnesses knew him | Photos were probative of identity, not unduly suggestive; any inference of prior record insufficient to exclude | No abuse of discretion — probative value on identity outweighed any unfair prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning and custodial interrogation rules)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (requirement to scrupulously honor invocation of right to silence)
- Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462 (Md. 2006) (appellate review of suppression rulings uses suppression hearing record)
- Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1 (Md. 2013) (Rule 4-252 waiver principles for suppression issues)
- Carroll v. State, 202 Md. App. 487 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (Rule 4-252 limits plain error review of unpreserved suppression theories)
- Straughn v. State, 297 Md. 329 (Md. 1983) (admissibility of out-of-court photo identifications and mug-shot inferences)
- Tilghman v. State, 117 Md. App. 542 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (when court must intervene if counsel gives facially erroneous advice about right to testify)
- Gilliam v. State, 320 Md. 637 (Md. 1990) (trial court need not advise represented defendants of right to testify unless it appears defendant misunderstands)
- Morales v. State, 325 Md. 330 (Md. 1992) (defendant changed decision when court erroneously advised impeachment consequences; reversal warranted)
- Thanos v. State, 330 Md. 77 (Md. 1993) (no reversal where record shows defendant decided not to testify before ambiguous advice; no detrimental reliance)