Williams v. State

646 A.2d 1101 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Reverend Hale lived in Randallstown, Maryland. Hale heard a knock on his apartment door. He went to the door, looked through the keyhole, and saw D standing at the door. Hale asked who was there and Williams answered by mumbling, asking if a certain person resided at Hale's residence. Hale partially opened the door, whereupon four men, including D, rushed through. One of the men held a gun to Hale's face. Hale noticed that three of the men were armed. The leader demanded that Hale divulge the location of 'the money' and 'the dope.' D kept telling the men that the 'dope' was in Hale's apartment, that he and Hale were friends, and that he had been in the apartment the previous day where he had used the 'dope' with Hale. D was forced to kneel next to Hale, and the three men made more demands for the money and the dope. D was allowed to make a telephone call. Hale was then tied up and the men, including D, left shortly. Nothing was taken from Hale's apartment. D testified that he was abducted by the three men because they believed that he knew the whereabouts of a drug stash. D had borrowed money from Chuckie's brother, Rodney, and had made a drug run to New York in order to help repay his debt. On a second trip to New York, D cooperated with the police and obtained the names, phone numbers, addresses, and license tag numbers of the parties involved in the drug deal. The three abductors were former members of Eubanks's drug organization and believed that D would know the location of the stash house. D was abducted and told them that he did not know the location of the stash house. They threatened to kill D if he did not disclose its location. Williams led the men to Hale's apartment, told them it was the stash house, and knocked on the door. D testified that he pretended to participate in the search of the premises. The phone call D made was to his mother and was done because the abductors were concerned because D's sister had witnessed the abduction. D was convicted and appealed because he claims the trial court erred when it did not allow duress for the conduct at the apartment.