Preview:

Criminal Law---Evidence---Confessions Maryland's common law voluntariness requirement does not apply to confessions elicited by purely private conduct and is applicable only when a confession is elicited by a person in authority, or in his or her presence and with his or her sanction. "Person in authority" is limited to a state actor, and does not include an employer, security guard, or an alleged victim.

Circuit Court for Charles County Case # CR 96-584 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 29 September Term, 1998

MICHAEL J. PAPPACONSTANTINOU v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Cathell, JJ.

Opinion by Raker, J.

Filed: December 11, 1998

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 met with several Auto Row employees and signed the following statement: I, Michael John Pappas wrongfully took merchandise and money from Auto Row Auto Parts. I realize that I was correctly terminated from this establishment. Property was destroyed and incorrectly marked as return item [sic]. I realize that what I did was wrong and I unjustly cause [sic] a lot of difficulties to the members of Auto Row Auto Parts. Auto Row initiated criminal charges, and Pappas was found guilty by a jury of twelve counts of theft under $300 and one count of theft over $300 in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 1997 Supp.), Article 27,

Download Pappaconstantinou v. State.pdf

Maryland Law