Law v. State
21 Md. App. 13, 1974 Md. App. LEXIS 386, 318 A.2d 859 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a suspect in custody indicates a desire to remain silent, all interrogation must cease; any statement obtained after the invocation of this right is inadmissible. The use of deadly force in defense of one's habitation is justified only when there is a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of a violent felony or great bodily harm.
Facts:
- After James Cecil Law, Jr., a Black man, moved into a predominantly white neighborhood, his home was burglarized.
- Following the burglary, Law told an investigating officer he would 'take care of the job' and get a gun.
- Two days later, Law purchased a 12-gauge shotgun and shells for 'house protection.'
- Law temporarily repaired a broken windowpane on his kitchen door, which opened onto a screened back porch.
- A week after the burglary, a neighbor, seeing a light and fearing another break-in, called the police.
- Police arrived and, without contacting the reporting neighbor, began investigating the house for signs of forced entry.
- Officers on the back porch discovered the temporarily repaired windowpane and, believing it to be the point of entry, began removing it to unlock the door.
- Hearing noises he believed to be an intruder, Law went downstairs with his shotgun and fired through the kitchen door, killing Officer Garrison.
Procedural Posture:
- James Cecil Law, Jr. was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County.
- The jury convicted Law of second-degree murder and assault with intent to murder.
- The trial court sentenced Law to concurrent ten-year prison terms.
- Law, as appellant, appealed the judgment to this court, the intermediate appellate court of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does continuing to interrogate a suspect in custody after he has indicated a desire to remain silent violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Lowe, J.
Yes. Continuing to interrogate a suspect after he has indicated a desire to remain silent is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court found a manifest breach of the principles established in Miranda v. Arizona. The suspect, Law, clearly stated to Detective Porter at the hospital that he 'didn't want to talk any more until he was further treated.' Despite this unambiguous invocation of his right to silence, Detective Hardester immediately initiated further questioning. Under Miranda, interrogation must cease the moment a suspect indicates a wish to remain silent, and any statement taken after that point is considered a product of compulsion and is therefore inadmissible. The court also found the 'totality of the circumstances'—including Law's injuries, his being drugged with Demerol, restrained, and surrounded by six officers—weighed heavily against the voluntariness of any statements made at the hospital. The court further clarified that the defense of habitation requires an objectively reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm from a violent felony; it does not sanction the use of deadly force based on a baseless or unreasonable apprehension.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the 'right to cut off questioning' established by Miranda, making it clear that a suspect's invocation of the right to silence must be scrupulously honored by all officers. The ruling serves as a bright-line rule against tag-team interrogation tactics where one officer continues questioning after a suspect has refused to speak to another. Furthermore, the court's analysis of the 'defense of habitation' tempers the popular 'castle doctrine' by imposing an objective reasonableness standard, preventing the justification of deadly force based on purely subjective or unreasonable fears. This clarification is significant for future cases involving homeowners who use deadly force against perceived intruders.
