Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Henderson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This аppellant was convicted by the court without a jury of being a second offender under the narcotics drug law. On May 28, 1962, three police officers from the narcotics squad went to 1716 Eutaw Place on information received. They observed the appellant come out of the rear basement door, then run back when he saw the оfficers. Officer Robinson sought and obtained permission from a tenant to enter into a common hallway and observed Williams going up the stairs toward the third floor. The officer admitted the other officers. Mrs. Beale, one оf the tenants on the third floor standing in her open doorway, handed the officer a package which, she said, had been thrust into her hands by Williams a few seconds before, with the remark: “Hold this for me.” The package contained white capsules and paraphernalia, such as hypodermic needles, bottle caps and eye droppers.
The appellant first raises a contention that the oral character of the “confession” vitiated it, or imposed an additional burden on the State in proving its voluntary character. We find no merit in the contention, for the reasons stated in Gault v. State, 231 Md. 78. We think the State met the burden of showing that the confession was voluntary. All of the officers who were present during the interrogatiоn of the appellant denied that there was any force or violence used, or any threats or promises made. The appellant contends, however, that the direct testimony of Officer Garrett is vitiated by the fаct that when asked in cross-examination whether anyone said to Williams: “if you tell us about this case you will be better off”, he replied: “I don’t recall them saying that”. This falls far short of a showing of inducement. Cf. Ralph v. State, 226 Md. 480, 486. The trial court stated that hе believed the officers and did not believe Williams’ story that he was beaten and threatened.
The appellant next contends that the court erred in admitting testimony as to “fresh” and “old” needle marks. This contention was alsо answered in the case of Gault v. State, supra, although the objection was not preserved in that case as it was in the instant сase. The officer had eleven years of experience, and was qualified as an expert. He testified that he meant by “old” needle marks, those not administered within twenty-four hours. One of the “fresh” marks was actually bleеding. The old marks had scabs. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony.
Finally, the appellant contends that when, after his arrest, he complied with the officer’s request to “let me see your arms”, he was deprived of his “right to immunity from self-incrimination.” The officers testified that they had already observed a fresh needle mark on the back of the apрellant’s hand. The officers had seen Williams go up the stairway and, following him, had obtained a package whiсh the tenant said he had thrust into her hands, containing what appeared to be narcotics. We think this was enough to constitute probable cause for the officers to believe that a crime was being committed in their presence and hence justified the arrest. Cf. Allen v. State, 229 Md. 253 and Robinson v. State, 229 Md. 503. Since the arrest was lawful, the evidence procured in the еnsuing search was admissible, even if we assume, without deciding, that the search was involuntary, and not by consent as the triаl court found. Cf. Armwood v. State, 229 Md. 565, Shields v. State, 229 Md. 153 and Gault v. State, supra. Moreover, the testimony as to the marks on the arms was merely cumulative and corroborative of the charge of possession, which was clearly established by the testimony of the tenant, the officers аnd the appellant’s own admission. See Schroder v. State, 206 Md. 261, 266. The case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 is not in point. ■
The appellant relies upon
Allen v. State,
183 Md. 603. But that case, if correctly decided, has been confined to its partic
Judgment affirmed.