Legal Opinion

Pappaconstantinou v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 11, 1998No. 29, Sept. Term, 1998PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAKER, Judge.

The question we must consider in this case is whether a confession elicited by a private individual is subject to Maryland’s common law requirement of voluntariness. We shall hold that Maryland’s common law voluntariness requirement does not apply to confessions elicited purely by private individuals.

I

Michael Pappaconstantinou (also known as Pappas) was employed with Auto Row Auto Parts (Auto Row) in Waldorf, Maryland for approximately three years until the company terminated him because it suspected that he had been stealing from the company. Following his termination, Pappas…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Lisenba v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Bram v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  4. Hillard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  5. Trusty v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Snyder v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Brown v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  3. Andrews v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. Cox v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  5. In Re Lavar D.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API