DAVID LEANDER FORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Berger, Dec. 20, 2017,
Consciousness of Guilt – Testimony that the defendant tried to hide at his ex-girlfriend’s house and cursed her out when she kicked him out in the morning was admissible as consciousness of guilt.
Overruled in part (not above) by CoA
Facts:
In 2015, Ford was sitting on a park bench in Anne Arundel County with Mohamed Eltahir when the two began fighting. Ford drew a knife and stabbed Eltahir, killing him.
Ford then went to his former girlfriend’s house to avoid the police. She let him stay the night, but kicked him out in the morning. He cursed her and left, slamming the front door. As he left, he was arrested by police.
Detective Ballard stayed with Ford after the arrest. As detectives approached the ex-girlfriend’s house, Ford stated that detectives were “not going to find anything” because he “hid the knife in the county.”
Ford complained that he had low blood sugar and Detective Ballard got him some food. Ford later began talking about the incident again, saying that “he cut me.” Detective Ballard then advised Ford of his Miranda rights and Ford did not say anything else.
Ford was then transported to an interrogation room. He was mirandized once again and had the following exchange with detectives:
QUESTION: You’re cold? Oh, it’s kind of warm in here. Um, the officers that brought you in said that you — you were bleeding. Do you need medical assistance?
ANSWER: Yeah, I need stitches (unintelligible).
QUESTION: You need stitches?
ANSWER: Mm-hm.
QUESTION: Okay. All right, do you, okay, so really fast then, um, so that we can get that started, um, the officer that brought you in said that, um, he read you — he advised you of your rights and that sort of thing . . .
Ford waived his Miranda rights and made more incriminating statements as well as telling detectives where he hid the knife. Ford also stated that he was “schizophrenic with bipolar, seizures, and everything” and that he had not taken his medication.
Ford was charged with the murder, his statements were admitted, and he was convicted of second-degree murder.
Ford appealed, arguing that his statements were involuntary because he was off of his medication and that his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals disagreed. His statements and his waiver of his Miranda rights were voluntary and properly admitted at trial.
Character evidence – In general, evidence of a defendant’s character cannot be used to show that they should be convicted because they’re a bad person
Consciousness of Guilt – Consciousness of guilt evidence is generally admissible and may include “flight after a crime, escape from confinement, use of a false name, and destruction or concealment of evidence.”
Consciousness of Guilt – Necessary Inferences – In order to be admissible, there must be a logical connection between the evidence presented and how it shows that the defendant committed the crime. It should be reasonable to infer (1) from the defendant’s conduct, a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence; (2) from a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence, consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt, consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses; and (4) from consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses, actual guilt.
From the Case: In the case at hand, Ford’s reaction to being told that he had to leave Brown’s house tended to show his guilty state of mind. Because Ford was staying at Brown’s house to hide from the police, Ford’s conduct was analogous to “flight after a crime, escape from
confinement, use of a false name, and destruction or concealment of evidence”. When Brown told Ford that he could no longer stay at her house, Ford’s reaction tended to show that he was desperate to avoid the legal consequences of his actions.
Statements – To be admissible in court, a statement given during custodial interrogation must be voluntary and satisfy Miranda.
Statements – A statement is voluntary if it is the result of an uncoerced choice where the suspect understands what he is doing
Statements – Voluntariness – A statement is involuntary if the suspect “is so mentally impaired that he does not know or understand what he is saying, or when the confession is induced by force, undue influence, improper promises, or threats.”
Voluntariness – Voluntariness is based on the circumstances, including “the length of the interrogation, the manner in which it was conducted, the number of police officers present throughout the interrogation, and the age, education and experience of the suspect.”
From the Case: Ford’s remarks to Detective Ballard were voluntary notwithstanding his mental and physical ailments. Although Ford suffers from mental illness, the circuit court found that Ford was not exhibiting any symptoms on the day of the arrest. Detective Ballard observed Ford walking on the street and testified that he was “walking fine.” Later, Ford had no trouble walking from the patrol car into CID. Although Ford complained of low blood sugar, Detective Ballard testified that Ford was responsive and appeared to be “coherent and awake.” Indeed, Ford stopped talking after receiving his Miranda warnings from Detective Ballard, suggesting that he could understand the information and act accordingly. The record reflects that Ford knew what he was saying and that his will was not overborne by Detective Ballard’s conduct.
From the Case: While there was a delay in providing medical treatment to Ford, there was no indication that he would be denied medical treatment if he refused to speak or give a particular answer.
Victim Character Evidence – Defense argument in opening that the victim started the fight opened the door to prosecution character evidence of peacefulness.