Legal Opinion
Hebb v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Decided May 10, 1976No. 1023, September Term, 1975PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.
The Law
Whenever the voluntariness of an accused’s confession, or other self-incriminating statement 1 made to police officers or prosecutorial officials, is attacked at trial, the judge should follow the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeals in Day v. State, 196 Md. 384, 399, 76 A. 2d 729, 736 (1950), as explicated and embellished, by this Court, in Mulligan v. State, 18 Md. App. 588, 308 A. 2d 418 (1973); Mulligan v. State, 10 Md. App. 429, 271 A. 2d 385 (1970); Barnhart v. State, 5 Md. App. 222, 246 A. 2d 280 (1968).
Then Chief Judge Marbury penned for the Court of Appeals, in Day:
“The…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Lego v. TwomeySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Schowgurow v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Dempsey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- State v. ChaneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. GartenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Aeropesca Ltd. v. Butler Aviation International, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Roach v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.