ÿWPC,+ ÛÁ•å¯ìºÊþ«ú–&r§ûˆšÊ„wÄK6¿n/×¥§î)Ĺf¼–çZ/L‚ü÷µËRÜk AIÖç}¬+oØË"?!óûgD%"QKÙp¥6ù)fÐ${µâ59\wàĘÊ*¹3¬Þêå«M_R*<è­(¿Íˆ*/P[Ucbï˜ï =%:4h wĤ«)Ô-kÍe¶²³ÔVë"C+ 4Ÿé‹`¾2õïQñíHøüÏ'Q@'mœ¢îÈŸøW‰ëBTáÇ^ï+;ú§Ö ‚»Íþ1K»\TéÄ4ÎÔe£3óBŒžõ8”ÑQEN‡·þÙ×,@›3Ó[',H’mÙVFA¾@£ƒšGøð­.߯Üü^Ø¢*…Ë?cïZìællegR—j}!k¬”?ûó~Á µÛ'T$À¯‡†9Ë—y¾ü¤Åzk0NàªÒƒÈKȱXRì8G®¦ØÄ¢¥‡=¬\÷Œ»ÍN€¢7ábÐk’Ë=-,`éy[Fo~e•Ù=¶(£Î¥ S°#jõxªSÎO„Yñ>r}§ ¬6¢Лšä…eXÏ¥xXÛ»r:O9Á¢œ‡V£Ó~fÝH 0 xð %h 04nU.¢NÐUFÒ#!49w@M4¡°4²Æ 0D΂ 4” UF¨ ^ î 4ú UN e\ ‚] UFß m% 4< bP P P ‚X X X UFÚH bhh‚pUFòòòò‚8 BºUF×××ׂUFŸŸŸŸ‚åUFggN­^ ¯^ »NÇVÉVËÍÍEÍÍÍHϯM Æ#%&(((3Ͷ$¤¤Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóX( ƒ•$¡¡Ñ  Ñ<þ6X9`(Courier<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0lzÁ( MDNOPDQRDSTUVÌ|M)~ø^3|xV (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XgpXXXÔÔ€XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇXñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regularø‰/)ÞxuHš Z‹6Times New Roman Regular xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XgpXXXÔÔ€XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇXñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XgpXXXÔÔ€XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇ!Xñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡!ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†!Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular >Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ €# ÑØØ- ù- xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€%XgpXXXÔÔ€%XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇ&Xñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡&ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†&Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†%XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€*XgpXXXÔÔ€*XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇ,Xñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡,ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†,Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†*XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô d<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€0XgpXXXÔÔ€0XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇ1Xñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡1ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†1Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†0XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular xÝ ƒ)$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€5XgpXXXÔÔ€5XgpXXXgpÔÝ  ݛԇ6Xñ<XXXgpÔÔ‡6ôkôõXXñ<ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€at€oralÐ ° Ðargument.Ô#†6Xñ<Xõôkô­#ÔÔ#†5XgpXXXñ<Ž#Ô<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regularø‰/)Þjv¯(  >Ý ƒͶ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡X‘ XXXÔÔ‡ô«½õXX‘ ÔCounsel€for€appellant€withdrew€this€issue€from€our€consideration€atÐ ° Ðoral€argument.Ô#†X‘ Xõô«½s#ÔÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ T#Ô ¥Ý ƒͶ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡ô¨óõXXÔÔ‡ô«½õõô¨óÔIn€his€testimony,€Ô_Ô¢Cassell£Ô_Ô€refers€to€Barrett€as€ð ðPaul€Smith,ðð€which€wasÐ ° Ðthe€name€that€Barrett€used€with€Ô_Ô¢Cassell£Ô_Ô.Ô#†ô¨óõõô«½s#ÔÔ#†X‡ZXõô¨óT#Ô C Ý ƒͶ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡ô¨óõXXÔÔ‡ô«½õõô¨óÔThe€actual€exchange€between€Detective€Jones€and€appellant€was€asÐ ° Ðfollows:ÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€Okay.€€Did€you€indicate€that€you€understoodÏthat?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€Yes€sir.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€And€how€did€you€do€that?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€With€my€signature.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€And€did€you€put€ð ðyesðð€behind€it€indicating€thatÏyou€understood€what€you€read?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€InaudibleÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€Okay.€€Will€you€put€ð ðyesðð€there€now€indicatingÏthat€you€understand€it?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€I€put€ð ðnoðð€ððcause€I€donððt€like€the€way€itððsÏgoing.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€Whatððs€the€problem?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€Whatððs€the€problem?€€What€youððre€doing,Ïyouððre€trying€to€trick€me€but€I€Ô_Ô¢ainððt£Ô_Ô€stupid.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€Okay,€so€what€are€you€indicating€to€me€Mr.ÏÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€What€Iððm€indicating€to€you€is€itððs€eitherÏyouððre€going€to€work€with€me€or€Iððm€not€going€to€workÏwith€you.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àJones:€Okay.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô:€I€need€you€to€work€with€me.€€I€mean€I€canÏgive€you€all€of€my€resources€and€my€solutions€but€ifÏyou€not€gong€to€work€with€me€than€[sic]€what€am€IÏgoing€to€work€with€you€if€I€know€in€the€long€run€youÏstill€going€to€be€playing€with€me€to€go€to€jail€forÏnothing.Ô#†ô¨óõõô«½s#ÔÔ#†X‡ZXõô¨óT#Ô Ý ƒͶ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡ô¨óõXXÔÔ‡ô«½õõô¨óÔInterestingly,€had€appellant€simply€refused€to€sign€the€waiverÐ ° Ðstatement€to€indicate€his€disagreement,€that€act€might€not€have€beenÏsufficient€to€constitute€a€request€for€counsel.€€òòSee,€óóe.gòò.óó,€òòÔ_Ô¢Mincey£Ô_Ô€v.€Headóó,Ð d Ð206€F.3d€1106,€1132€(2000);€òòUnited€States€v.€Boon€San€Chongóó,€829€F.2d€1572,Ð Ì Ð1574€(11òòthóó€Cir.€1987);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_Ô¢McDaniel£Ô_Ôóó,€463€F.2d€129,€135€(5òòthóó€Cir.Ð „Ô Ð1972).Ô#†ô¨óõõô«½s#ÔÔ#†X‡ZXõô¨óT#Ô€€ ýÝ ƒͶ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡ô¨óõXXÔÔ‡ô«½õõô¨óÔIn€contrast,€there€is€substantial€case€law€indicating€that€a€requestÐ ° Ðfor€counsel€may€be€disregarded€as€ð ðequivocalðð€when€preceded€by€words€such€asÏð ðmaybe.ðð€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòDavisóó,€512€U.S.€at€462€(holding€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢m]aybe£Ô_Ô€I€should€talk€toÐ d   Ða€lawyerðð€to€be€equivocal);€òòÔ_Ô¢Robtoy£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_Ô¢Kincheloe£Ô_Ôóó,€871€F.2d€1478,€1479€(holdingÐ ° Ðð ðmaybe€I€should€call€my€attorneyðð€to€be€equivocal);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_Ô¢Flamer£Ô_Ô€v.Ð h¸ ÐDelawareóó,€68€F.3d€710,€725€(3d€Cir.€1995)€(holding€a€request€to€make€a€phoneÐ  p Ðcall€ð ðto€inquire€about€.€.€.€possible€representationðð€to€be€equivocal);ÏòòÔ_Ô¢Ledbetter£Ô_Ô€v.€Edwardsóó,€35€F.3d€1062,€1069€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1994)€(holding€ððð ð[Ô_Ô¢i]t£Ô_Ô€wouldÐ ŠÚ Ðbe€niceðð€to€have€an€attorneyðð€to€be€equivocal).Ô#†ô¨óõõô«½s#ÔÔ#†X‡ZXõô¨óT#ÔÝ ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ñVñ›Ô_ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡X‘ XXXÔò òñVññUñà@ÎÎ"ìàÔ‡Šçx‹XX‘ ÔñUññVñÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ D#ÔñVññUñÔ‡Š[]‹XЇZÔPETER€B.€¢KRAUSER£ˆÐ ° Ðà@ccìàCourt€of€Special€AppealsˆÌà@$$!ìà361€Rowe€BoulevardˆÌà@ÙÙìàAnnapolis,€Maryland€21401ˆÌà@~~$ìà410„260„1469ˆÌñUññVñó óñVññUñÌÌÔ#†Š‡ZX‹Š[]º#ÔÔ‡X‘ XXX‡ZÔÔ#†X‘ X‹Šçxx#Ôà@ðð"ìàÔ ƒÝ ÔNovember€16,€2000Ô!  ԈР°  ÐÌÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ È#ÔChief€Judge€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.Ð \ ¬  ÐHonorable€Charles€E.€¢Moylan£,€Jr.ÌHonorable€¢Arrie£€W.€DavisÌHonorable€Ellen€L.€HollanderÌHonorable€James€P.€SalmonÌHonorable€James€R.€¢Eyler£ÌHonorable€Raymond€G.€¢Thieme£,€Jr.ÌHonorable€Andrew€L.€¢Sonner£ÌHonorable€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÌHonorable€Deborah€S.€ByrnesÌHonorable€Sally€D.€¢Adkins£ÌÔ‡X‡ZXXX‡ZÔÌÔ#†X‡ZXXX‡ZÝ#ÔÔ‡X‘ XXX‡ZÔà  àRe:à0 ` àòòKevin€¢Darnyl£€¢Billups£€v.€State€of€Marylandóóм ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àNo.€1887,€September€Term,€1999Ìà  àà ` àArgued:€€April€5,€2000ÌÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àEnclosed€for€your€review€is€a€proposed€ò òreportedó ó€opinion€in€theÐ Æ Ðabove„captioned€appeal.ÌÌà  àI€would€appreciate€your€comments€and€suggestions€in€time€forÏour€next€conference.ÌÌà  àThank€you€for€your€cooperation,€I€amÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSincerely,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€ò òòòÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ #ÔÔ‡X/š XXX‡ZÔPeteró óÐ 0$€% ÐÌÔ#†X‡ZX XX/š#ÔñUññVñÔ‡X‘ XXXÔñVññUñóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPeter€B.€¢Krauser£Ð &^!' ÐÌ¢PBK:ld£ÌEnclosureÌÌÌÌÌÌñUññVñÌÌÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ #ÔÒÀ°ÒÑ = ÑÌÌÌà@5ôàò òREPORTEDˆÐ ´ ÐÌó óÌÌ€€òòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóÐ $ t  Ðà  àà p à€€òòOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ì <  ÐÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€€€No.€1887Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  à€€€September€Term,€1999Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ d´  Ðà  àà p àà È àà  à€€€€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀóhAßÐ ôD ÐÌÌà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@DD/ôàKEVIN€Ô_Ô¢DARNYL£Ô_Ô€Ô_Ô¢BILLUPS£Ô_Ԉ̀€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@||8ôàv.ˆÌÌà@øø1ôàSTATE€OF€MARYLANDˆÌÌÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀ*hAßÐ +{! ÐÌÌà  àHollander,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Sonner£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,ÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀy$hAßÐ z$Ê* ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€àHDD0`à€€€€€€€€€ˆàHTT-|àOpinion€by€Ô_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,€J.ˆÐ &i!- Ðà  àÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x à€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀp(hAßÐ q(Á#0 Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€ÌÌà  àFiled:ñSñ€November€16,€2000ñSñÌÐ ° ÐñVñÓÓñVñÐ  ° ÐñVñÒÀ°ÒÑ  ÑÓÓà@5ôàò òREPORTEDˆÐ ° ÐÌó óÌÌ€€òòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóÐ  p Ðà  àà p à€€òòOF€MARYLANDóóÐ è8 ÐÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€€€No.€1887Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  à€€€September€Term,€1999Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ `°  Ðà  àà p àà È àà  à€€€€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀïhAßÐ ð@  ÐÌÌà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@DD/ôàKEVIN€Ô_Ô¢DARNYL£Ô_Ô€Ô_Ô¢BILLUPS£Ô_Ԉ̀€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@||8ôàv.ˆÌÌà@øø1ôàSTATE€OF€MARYLANDˆÌÌÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀ&hAßÐ 'w ÐÌÌà  àHollander,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Sonner£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,ÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀu hAßÐ v Æ% ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€àHDD0`à€€€€€€€€€ˆàHTT-|àOpinion€by€Ô_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,€J.ˆÐ "e( Ðà  àÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x à€€ÌßA€+@) °°xdEÀl$hAßÐ m$½+ Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€ÌÌà  àFiled:ñTñ€November€16,€2000ñTñÌÌÓÓÐ  œ'ì"0 ÐÒ°ÀÒÑ  ÑÔ‡X‘ XXXÔÑ€" »Ñà  àAppellant,€Kevin€Ô_Ô¢Darnyl£Ô_Ô€Ô_Ô¢Billups£Ô_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€inÐ ° Ðthe€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€City€of€second€degree€murder,Ïrobbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€second€degree€assault,€and€threeÏcounts€of€use€of€a€handgun€in€a€crime€of€violence.€€He€wasÏsubsequently€sentenced€to€a€total€of€fifty€years'€imprisonment.€ÏThis€appeal€followed.€€€€€€€€Ìà  àAppellant€presents€for€our€review€the€following€issues,Ïwhich€have€been€reworded€and€reordered€for€the€purposes€ofÏdiscussion:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÐ ¼  Ðappellantððs€motion€to€suppress€theÏstatement€he€gave€police.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ d Ðadmitting€into€evidence€statements€ofÏthe€murder€victim€under€the€ð ðexcitedÏutteranceðð€exception€to€the€rule€againstÏhearsay.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIII.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ h Ðimposing€separate€sentences€for€use€of€aÏhandgun€in€a€murder€and€use€of€a€handgunÏin€a€robbery€of€the€same€victim.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIV.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€jury€could€lawfully€convictÐ F –! Ðappellant€of€use€of€a€handgun€in€aÏfelony€or€crime€of€violence€based€on€hisÏsecond€degree€assault€conviction.òò[óó׃C×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò]óóÐÈ"$¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àV.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€evidence€was€legallyÐ t$Ä& Ðsufficient€to€sustain€appellantððsÏconvictions.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓà  àFor€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€shall€vacate€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€on€the€ground€that€it€erred€in€not€suppressingÐ x)È$, ÐÑ" »Ñâ "âÑ8€‡ZXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€#ÑØØâ "âÑ  Ñappellantððs€statement€to€police€and€shall€remand€this€case€forÏfurther€proceedings.€€Because€we€are€vacating€appellantððsÏconviction€on€that€ground,€we€need€not€address€appellantððsÏcontention€that€the€police€improperly€induced€him€to€make€thatÏstatement.€€€As€to€appellant's€contention€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions€(Issue€V),€we€note€thatÏthis€claim€is€manifestly€without€merit€and€therefore€does€notÏwarrant€extended€consideration.€€Suffice€it€to€say€that€appellant'sÏstatements€to€police€and€to€a€fellow€prisoner€and€hisÏidentification€by€the€murder€victim€and€an€eyewitness€to€theÏshooting€provided€sufficient€evidence€to€sustain€his€convictions.€ÏFinally,€because€this€matter€may€be€retried,€we€shall€address€suchÏissues€as€remain€and€are€properly€before€us€for€the€guidance€of€theÏtrial€court.€ÌÌà@ÀÀ(ìàò òFACTSó óˆÐ h Ðà  àOn€February€16,€1998,€appellant€and€another€individualÏallegedly€entered€the€apartment€of€Cecil€Barrett€and,€while€there,Ïrobbed€and€murdered€Barrett€and€assaulted€Woodrow€Ô_Ô¢Cassell£Ô_Ô.€€BarrettÏwas€a€neighbor€of€appellantððs€and€purportedly€sold€drugs€from€hisÏapartment.€€Ô_Ô¢Cassell£Ô_Ô€worked€for€Barrett.Ô_Ԣ׃D×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ô_Ô€€Ð $à& Ðà  à€On€that€day,€Barrett,€responding€to€a€knock€on€his€frontÏdoor,€looked€through€the€doorððs€peephole€and€said,€ð ðCome€on€in,Ð è'8#* ÐSteve.ðð€€When€Barrett€opened€the€door,€ð ðSteveðð€and€another€man,€whoÏwas€carrying€a€gun,€grabbed€him€and€pulled€him€into€the€hallway.€ÏThen,€pushing€Barrett€back€into€the€apartment,€the€two€men€entered.€ÏOne€of€them€ordered€Ô_Ô¢Cassell£Ô_Ô€to€lie€down€on€the€kitchen€floor.€€BothÏmen€then€forced€Barrett€into€a€back€room€of€the€apartment,€where€aÏstruggle€ensued.€€Four€gunshots€rang€out,€and€one€of€the€intrudersÏran€out€of€the€apartment.€€The€other€followed,€carrying€a€gun,€andÏshouted,€ð ðWhat€about€him,ðð€referring€to€¢Cassell£.€€The€fleeingÏintruder€responded,€ð ðKill€him€too.ðð€€The€gunman€fired€a€shot€atÏ¢Cassell£,€and€then€he€too€fled.€€Ìà  àMoments€later,€Barrett€emerged€from€the€back€room€and,€despiteÏa€gunshot€wound€to€his€abdomen,€ran€out€of€the€apartment€in€pursuitÏof€his€assailants.€€Outside,€he€entered€a€car€and€instructed€itsÏdriver€to€take€him€to€the€hospital.€€Upon€arriving€at€the€hospital,ÏBarrett€collapsed€in€front€of€the€emergency€room€door.€Ìà  àOfficer€Allen€Dorsey,€who€was€in€the€emergency€room€on€anÏunrelated€matter,€approached€Barrett€and€asked€him€who€had€shotÏhim.€€Barrett€replied,€ð ðKevin,ðð€which€he€repeated€when€OfficerÏDorsey€asked€the€question€a€second€time.€€Dorsey€then€asked€whereÏthe€shooting€had€occurred.€€Barrett€responded,€ð ðIn€the€apartment.ðð€ÏA€few€moments€later,€in€a€hospital€examining€room,€Barrett€statedÏto€Agent€Richard€¢Hardick£€and,€shortly€after€that,€to€DetectiveÏâ âRonald€Copeland,€ð ðKevin€did€it,ðð€and€provided€both€officers€withÐ x)È$, Ðdetails€about€the€incident€and€Kevinððs€identity.€€A€few€hoursÏlater,€Barrett€died€of€his€wounds.Ìâ ââ âà  àThree€or€four€days€later,€¢Cassell£€identified€appellant€in€aÏphotographic€array€as€the€intruder€who€said€ð ðKill€him€too.ððÏAppellant€was€arrested€on€February€20,€1997.€€In€the€early€morningÏhours€of€February€21,€1997,€appellant€gave€a€statement€to€police.ÏHe€admitted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder€and€robbery,€he€was€atÏBarrettððs€apartment€to€buy€marijuana,€but€denied€any€involvement€inÏthe€crimes.€€At€ñOñCñOññPñcñPñentral€œñQñBñQññRñbñRñooking,›€however,€he€confided€to€a€fellowÏprisoner,€Bart€¢Bowles£,€that€he€had€in€fact€robbed€and€shot€Barrett.Ìà  àPrior€to€trial,€appellant€moved€to€suppress€the€statement€heÏgave€police€and€to€exclude€the€statements€made€by€Barrett€to€policeÏofficers€shortly€before€his€death.€€After€a€hearing,€both€motionsÏwere€denied.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIó óÐ Ä ÐÓ•0Óà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€the€statement€he€gave€police.€€€He€argues€thatÏthe€statement€in€question€was€taken€after€he€had€requested€anÏattorney€by€writing€ð ðnoðð€on€the€waiver€of€counsel€portion€of€theÏð ðExplanation€Of€Rightsðð€form€he€was€asked€to€sign€by€police€beforeÏquestioning€began.€€Therefore,€he€contends,€that€statement€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed,€as€it€was€taken€in€violation€of€his€right€toÏcounsel.€Ð @+&. Ðà  àIn€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€we€mayÏconsider€only€the€facts€produced€ð ðððat€the€suppression€hearing€.€.Ï.€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€State€as€the€prevailing€party€onÏthe€motion.ðððð€òò€Ô_Ô¢Riddick£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€319€Md.€180,€183€(1990)€(quotingÐ ´  ÐòòSimpler€v.€Stateóó,€318€Md.€311,€312€(1990))€(citations€omitted).€Ð l ¼ ÐMoreover,€if€there€is€conflicting€evidence,€we€must€adopt€theÏfindings€of€fact€of€the€trial€judge,€unless€the€findings€areÏclearly€erroneous.€€òòSee€Ô_Ô¢Riddick£Ô_Ôóó,€319€Md.€at€183.€€Nonetheless,€weÐ |Ì  Ðare€required€to€ð ðmake€our€own€independent€constitutional€appraisalððÏas€to€whether€an€action€was€proper€ð ðby€reviewing€the€law€andÏapplying€it€to€the€facts€of€the€case.ðð€€òòMatthews€v.€Stateóó,€106€Md.Ð ŒÜ ÐApp.€725,€732€(1995).€€With€this€in€mind,€we€shall€now€consider€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€appellantððs€statement.€€Ìà  àAppellant€turned€himself€in€to€the€police€on€February€20,Ï1998.€€On€February€21,€1998,€at€approximately€2:00€a.m.,€appellantÏgave€a€recorded€statement€to€the€police€in€which€he€placed€himselfÏat€the€scene€of€the€crime€but€denied€any€involvement€with€theÏcrimes€alleged.Ìà  àShortly€before€recording€appellantððs€statement,€DetectiveÏWayne€Jones€gave€appellant€an€ð ðExplanation€of€Rights€Form€69.ðð€€HeÏinstructed€appellant€to€read€each€advisement€of€right€aloud,€thenÏto€indicate€whether€he€understood€each€one€by€writing€ð ðyesðð€or€ð ðnoððÏat€the€end€of€each€advisement,€and€to€place€his€initials€next€toÏhis€response.€€After€writing€ð ðyesðð€after€each€advisement€andÐ T+¤&. Ðinitialing€each€response,š€appellant€signed€his€name€on€theÏsignature€line€beneath€the€capitalized€statement:€ð ðI€HAVE€READ€THEÏABOVE€EXPLANATION€OF€MY€RIGHTS,€AND€I€FULLY€UNDERSTAND€IT.ðð€€NextÏto€his€signature€he€wrote€ð ðyes.ðð€€Ìà  àBelow€that€appeared€the€following€single€spaced€statement:€€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€am€willing€to€answer€questions,€and€I€do€notÏwant€any€attorney€at€this€time.€€My€decisionÏto€answer€questions€without€having€an€attorneyÏpresent€is€free€and€voluntary€on€my€part.€Ð ` x` x ЀÌÓã:ÓDetective€Jones€instructed€appellant,€ð ðIf€you€understood€what€youÏhave€read,€just€simply€place€your€signature.ðð€€Appellant€signed€asÏinstructed€and€placed€his€initials€next€to€his€signature€but,€nextÏto€his€initials,€wrote€the€word€ð ðno.ðð€€Writing€the€word€ð ðno,ðð€JonesÏstated,€ð ðwas€a€contradiction€of€[his]€instructions€to€him.ðð€Ìà  àAfter€approximately€twenty„five€minutes€of€questioning€aboutÏð ðthe€events€under€investigationðð€(to€employ€the€StateððsÏcharacterization€of€the€ensuing€discussions),€Detective€Jones€askedÏappellantððs€permission€to€make€an€audio€tape€of€appellantððsÏstatement.€€Appellant€consented.€€At€the€beginning€of€the€tapedÏstatement,€Detective€Jones€again€advised€appellant€of€his€rights.€ÏHe€then€asked€appellant,€for€the€first€time,€why€he€had€writtenÏð ðnoðð€after€he€signed€the€waiver€of€counsel€provision.€€AppellantÏresponded,€ð ðI€put€ððnoðð€ððcause€I€donððt€like€the€way€itððs€going.ðð€ÏThe€detective€then€asked,€ð ðWhatððs€the€problem?ðð€€Appellant€replied,Ïð ðWhatððs€the€problem?€€What€youððre€doing,€youððre€trying€to€trick€meÏbut€I€Ô_Ô¢ainððt£Ô_Ô€stupid.ðð€€Pressed€further€by€Jones,€appellantÐ ú+J'/ Ðexplained,€ð ðWhat€Iððm€indicating€to€you€is€itððs€either€youððre€goingÏto€work€with€me€or€Iððm€not€going€to€work€with€you.ððÔ_Ԣ׃E×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ô_ԀР\¬ Ðà  àDuring€that€questioning,€as€he€had€done€during€the€pre„tapeÏinterview,€appellant€admitted€having€been€in€the€apartment€duringÏthe€robbery,€but€he€claimed€that€he€was€at€the€door€of€theÐ ` ° Ðapartment€to€buy€ð ðweedðð€from€Barrett€when€he€was€approached€by€twoÏindividuals€and€forced€into€the€apartment.€€During€the€recording€ofÏhis€statement,€appellant€indicated€that€his€statement€wasÏvoluntary.€€Later,€following€a€hearing€on€appellantððs€motion€toÏsuppress€that€statement,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€toÏsuppress,€holding€that€appellant€had€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏwaived€his€right€to€counsel.Ìà  àNeither€party€disputes€that€appellant,€having€surrenderedÏpursuant€to€a€warrant€for€his€arrest,€was€the€subject€of€aÏcustodial€interrogation€at€the€time€he€gave€the€statement€inÏquestion,€and€that,€therefore,€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€required.€òò€SeeÐ h¸ ÐMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444€(1966).€€Nor€does€eitherÐ  p Ðparty€question€whether€the€warnings€were€in€fact€given€as€requiredÏby€law.€€Indeed,€the€only€issue€before€us€is€whether€appellant,€byÏwriting€ð ðnoðð€after€his€signature,€on€a€form€waiving€his€right€toÏcounsel,€asserted€his€right€to€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavis€v.€UnitedÐ Ü, ÐStatesóó,€512€U.S.€452,€459€(1994).€€Ð ”ä  Ðà  àThe€test€to€determine€whether€an€invocation€of€a€right€toÏcounsel€has€occurred€following€òòMirandaóó€warnings€ð ðððrequires,€at€aÐ ø"H$ Ðminimum,€some€statement€that€can€reasonably€be€construed€to€be€anÏexpression€of€a€desire€for€the€assistance€of€an€attorney.ðððð€€òòId.óóÐ \&¬!( Ð(quoting€òòÔ_Ô¢McNeil£Ô_Ô€v.€Wisconsinóó,€501€U.S.€171,€178€(1991)).€TheÐ (d#* Ðstatement€must€be€sufficiently€clear€ð ðthat€a€reasonable€policeÏofficer€in€the€circumstances€would€understand€the€statement€to€beÐ x+È&. Ða€request€for€an€attorney.ðð€€òòId.óó€€But€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢d]oubts£Ô_Ô€must€be€resolved€inÐ ° Ðfavor€of€protecting€the€constitutional€claim,ðð€and€courts€are€toÏð ðgive€a€broad,€rather€than€a€narrow,€interpretation€to€aÏdefendantððs€request€for€counsel€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475Ð À  ÐU.S.€625,€633€(1986).€€Once€such€an€assertion€is€made€by€a€suspect,Ïlaw€enforcement€officials€must€cease€all€questioning€until€anÏattorney€has€been€made€available€or€the€suspect€himself€reinitiatesÏconversation.€€òòSee€Davisóó,€512€U.S.€at€458€(citing€òòEdwards€v.Ð |Ì  ÐArizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€484„85€(1981)).€Ð 4„  Ðà  àAs€noted€earlier,€before€questioning€began,€appellant€wasÏpresented€with€a€single„page€form.€€At€the€top€of€that€documentÏwere€the€words€ð ðEXPLANATION€OF€RIGHTS.ðð€€These€words€wereÏcapitalized,€in€bold€print,€and€much€larger€than€most€of€the€printÏthat€followed.€€As€no€other€titles€appear€on€the€page,€the€formÏseems€at€first€blush€to€be€a€statement€of€rights€and€nothing€more.€ÏMoreover,€the€words€ð ðExplanation€of€Rights€Form€69"€appear€in€theÏupper€left„hand€corner€of€the€document.€€And,€indeed,€below€€thisÏtitle,€as€promised,€double„spaced€and€numbered,€the€òòMirandaóóÐ L!œ" Ðadvisements€are€laid€out.€€After€each€advisement,€a€space€isÏprovided€for€the€recipient€to€indicate,€by€writing€ð ðyesðð€and€byÏinserting€his€initials,€that€he€has€been€advised€of€that€right.€ÏBelow€that€is€the€statement,€in€capitalized€letters,€ð ðI€HAVE€READÏTHE€ABOVE€EXPLANATION€OF€MY€RIGHTS,€AND€I€FULLY€UNDERSTAND€IT,ððÏfollowed€by€a€signature€line.Ð `+°&. Ðà  àAfter€reading€each€of€the€numbered€warnings€out€loud€asÏrequested€by€Detective€Jones,€appellant€wrote€ð ðyesðð€in€the€spaceÏprovided€at€the€end€of€the€warning€and€initialed€it.€€He€thenÏsigned€his€name€on€the€signature€line€and,€next€to€his€signature,Ïwrote€ð ðyes,ðð€indicating€that€his€rights€had€been€explained€to€himÏand€that€he€understood€them.€€Ìà  àBelow€that,€however,€in€smaller€type€and€single„spaced,€areÏtwo€sentences€and€a€signature€line€that,€without€warning,€expandedÏthis€simple€explanation€of€rights€form€into€a€waiver€of€counselÏform.€€Gone€are€the€titles,€capitalized€letters,€bold€print,Ïenlarged€lettering€and€double€spacing,€which€earlier€proclaimedÏthat€this€was€an€explanation€of€rights€form.€€Instead,€with€noÏtitle€or€prefatory€language€to€indicate€that€a€significant€changeÏin€the€nature€of€the€document€had€occurred,€the€following€statementÏappears:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIððm€willing€to€answer€questions,€and€I€do€notÏwant€any€attorney€at€this€time.€€My€decisionÏto€answer€questions€without€having€an€attorneyÏpresent€is€free€and€voluntary€on€my€part.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÖSÓThere€was€no€indication€in€the€form€that€appellant€had€the€right€toÏdecline€to€sign€his€name€below€this€statement.€€Nor€was€itÏunreasonable€for€appellant€to€assume€that€he€was€signing€his€name,Ïjust€as€he€had€done€earlier€in€the€form,€to€indicate€only€that€heÏunderstood€the€meaning€of€the€preceding€language.€€And,€indeed,Ïthat€was€precisely€the€reason€he€was€given€by€Detective€Jones€forÏsigning€there€ð"ð€a€glaring€piece€of€misdirection€if€there€ever€wasÐ ú+J'/ Ðone.€€Moreover,€the€import€of€this€Ô_Ô¢unhighlighted£Ô_Ô€language,€for€theÏreasons€outlined€above,€is€easy€to€miss.Ìà  àBut€appellant€apparently€did€not€miss€its€meaning.€€AfterÏcomplying€with€Detective€Jonesððs€instruction€that€he€sign€theÏsignature€line€if€he€understood€what€he€had€read,€appellant€wroteÏð ðnoðð€next€to€his€signature.€€Unlike€the€explanation€of€rightsÏportion€of€the€form€immediately€preceding€this€waiver,€no€space€wasÏprovided€for€any€response€but€a€positive€one€ð"ð€his€signature€ð"ð€toÏthe€waiver€of€counsel€statement.€Appellant€expressed€hisÏdisagreement€with€the€waiver€of€counsel€statement€in€the€only€wayÏhe€could€in€the€context€of€the€form€he€had€been€told€to€sign€ð"ð€byÏwriting€ð ðnoðð€beside€his€signature.¢×ƒF×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€Ð d Ðà  àAlthough€the€meaning€of€ð ðisðð€has€been€recently€debated€inÏextrajudicial€circles,€we€can€emphatically€state€(much€to€theÏrelief€of€the€bar€and€public,€weððre€sure)€that€ð ðnoðð€means€ð ðno.ðð€ÏThere€cannot€be€a€more€unambiguous€response€to€a€written€waiverÏthan€a€written,€unconditional€ð ðno.ðð€€Indeed,€it€constituted€anÏunambiguous€assertion€by€appellant€that€he€did€not€wish€to€answerÏquestions€without€an€attorney€present.Ô_Ԣ׃Gä×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ô_Ô€€Questioning€should€haveÐ È"$ Ðstopped€and€not€resumed€until€either€an€attorney€had€been€madeÏavailable€to€appellant€or€he€had€reinitiated€discussions.€€òòSeeÐ \¬ ÐDavisóó,€512€U.S.€at€458.€€€Ð d Ðà  àThe€State€contends€that€appellantððs€written€ð ðnoðð€was€ambiguousÏbecause€the€waiver€provision€was€ð ðmultifaceted.ðð€€We€disagree.€€AsÏthere€was€no€room€in€the€provision€for€appellant€to€respond€to€eachÏof€its€assertions,€appellant€had€no€choice€but€to€place€his€writtenÏð ðnoðð€where€he€did.€€That€ð ðnoðð€can€only€reasonably€be€read€as€aÏnegative€response€to€each€assertion€of€that€provision€waiving€hisÏright€to€counsel.€€Moreover,€if€there€is€any€ambiguity€inÏappellantððs€unequivocal€and€emphatic€response,€as€contended€by€theÏState€(and€we€do€not€believe€that€there€is)€because€of€theÏð ðmultifacetedðð€nature€of€the€sentences€that€compose€the€waiver€ofÏcounsel€provision,€the€ambiguity€should€arguably€be€interpretedÏagainst€the€author€of€that€provision€ð"ð€the€State.€€No€discernableÏpublic€interest€is€served€by€interpreting€a€purportedly€ambiguousÏwaiver€of€rights€provision€in€favor€of€the€party€who,€eitherÏintentionally€or€unintentionally,€inserted€the€ambiguity€in€theÏâ âprovision€in€the€first€place.€€Ð à"0$ Ðà  àFinally,€the€Stateððs€suggestion€that€appellantððs€post„¼â âstatement€explanations€for€writing€ð ðnoðð€next€to€his€signatureÏrendered€ambiguous€this€handwritten€declaration€is€also€withoutÏmerit.€€In€rejecting€a€similar€claim€in€òòSmith€v.€Illinoisóó,€469€U.S.Ð ´  Ð91,€92€(1984),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðanÏaccusedððs€post„request€responses€may€not€be€used€to€cast€doubt€onÏthe€clarity€of€his€initial€request€for€counsel.ððòò€€See€also€Brown€v.Ð Ä  ÐStateóó,€79€Md.€App.€163,€168€(1989)€(ð ðOnce€a€defendant€requests€aÐ |Ì  Ðlawyer,€subsequent€advisement€of€constitutional€rights€followed€byÏacquiescence€in€police„initiated€questioning€cannot€establish€aÏvalid€waiver€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€assistance€ofÏcounsel.ðð).€€Ìà  àIn€òòSmithóó,€the€defendant,€in€response€to€a€question€by€policeÐ ä4 Ðas€to€whether€he€understood€his€right€to€have€counsel€present,Ïstated,€ð ðUh,€yeah.€€Iððd€like€to€do€that.ðð€€469€U.S.òò€óóat€93.€Ð H˜ ÐNotwithstanding€this€explicit€request€for€counsel,€conditionedÏonly,€if€at€all,€by€ð ðuhðð€and€ð ðyeah,ðð€the€state€court€below€heldÏthat,€when€the€statement€was€considered€with€others€made€later,€theÏstatement€was€not€a€clear€and€unequivocal€invocation€of€the€rightÏto€counsel.€€òòId.óó€at€94.€€Rejecting€ð ðthis€line€of€analysisðð€asÐ °$ & Ðð ðunprecedented€and€untenable,ðð€the€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhere€nothing€about€the€request€for€counsel€orÏthe€circumstances€leading€up€to€the€requestÏwould€render€it€ambiguous,€all€questioningÏmust€cease.€€In€these€circumstances,€anÏâ âaccusedððs€subsequent€statements€are€relevantÐ l+¼&. Ðonly€to€the€question€whether€the€accusedÏwaived€the€right€he€had€invoked.Ð ` x` x Ðâ âÌÓŸgÓòòId.óó€at€98.Ð 2‚ Ðà  àAs€the€post„request€statements€in€question€were€made€byÏappellant€not€only€after€he€had€invoked€his€right€to€counsel€butÏalso€after€he€had€in€fact€given€a€statement€(that€was€audio€tapedÏtwenty„five€minutes€later),€they€could€not€constitute€a€validÏwaiver€of€the€right€to€counsel,€which,€to€be€effective,€mustÏprecede€the€statement€given.€€òòSee€id.óó€€Parenthetically,€we€noteÐ F–  Ðthat€at€least€one€of€appellantððs€post„request€statements€ð"ð€hisÏassertion€that€the€police€were€trying€to€trick€him€ð"ð€was€not€onlyÏunambiguous€but€quite€understandable.€€Indeed,€what€otherÏconclusion€could€he€have€drawn€from€what€must€have€appeared€to€himÏas€a€deliberate€effort€by€the€police€to€slip€in€a€waiver€of€counselÏprovision€in€an€explanation€of€rights€form€and€from€DetectiveÏJonesððs€instructionÔ_Ô€that€he€sign€the€waiver€of€counsel€statement€ifÏhe€simply€understood€it.Ìà  àIn€sum,€we€hold€that,€because€appellant€invoked€his€right€toÏcounsel,€Detective€Jones€should€have€immediately€ceased€hisÏquestioning€of€appellant.€€His€failure€to€do€so€renders€all€ofÏappellantððs€subsequent€statements€to€him,€taped€or€otherwise,Ïinadmissible€as€Ô_Ô¢violative£Ô_Ô€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€The€trial€courtÏtherefore€erred€in€denying€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€thoseÏâ âstatements.€€Ð f*¶%- Ðà  àBecause€we€hold€that€the€statement€in€question€should€haveÏâ âbeen€suppressed,€we€need€not€address€appellantððs€separateÏcontention€that€Detective€Jones€improperly€induced€him€to€make€thatÏstatement.€€We€shall,€however,€address€such€issues€as€remain€andÏare€properly€before€us€for€the€guidance€of€the€trial€court€in€theÏevent€of€a€retrial.€ÌÔ& Ì ÔÓ  Óò òIIó óÐ ¸  ÐÔ_ÔÓXpÓà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÏinto€evidence€as€excited€utterances€the€out„of„court€statements€ofÏÔ'̸LpÔCecil€Barrett,€the€murder€victim,€to€Officer€Allen€Dorsey,€AgentÏRichard€¢Hardick£,€and€Detective€Ronald€Copeland.€€In€thoseÏstatements,€Barrett€identified€appellant€as€his€assailant€andÏdescribed€how€and€where€the€crime€took€place.€€Because€appellantÏfailed€to€object€at€trial€to€Detective€Copelandððs€testimonyÏregarding€the€statements€made€to€him€by€Barrett€and€becauseÏappellant's€counsel€was€responsible€for€eliciting€on€cross„Ïexamination€the€testimony€of€Officer€Dorsey€on€this€point,Ïappellant€has€failed€to€preserve€the€former€for€our€review€andÏwaived€the€latter.€€Moreover,€his€failure€to€object€timely€to€suchÏtestimony€also€extends€to€a€portion€of€Agent€¢Hardick£ððs€testimony.€ÏAppellant€did€not€object€to€Agent€¢Hardick£ððs€testimony€that€BarrettÏhad€stated€several€times€to€him:€ð ðKevin€did€it.ðð€€Appellant€hasÏtherefore€also€waived€his€right€to€challenge€that€portion€ofÏ¢Hardick£ððs€testimony€on€appeal.€€Indeed,€the€only€issue€left€for€ourÐ @+&. Ðconsideration€is€whether€Barrettððs€statement€to€¢Hardick£€regardingÏthe€events€leading€up€to€the€offenses€in€question€was€admissibleÏunder€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€rule€against€hearsay.€Ï¢Hardick£€described€Barrettððs€statement€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€asked€him€what€had€happened.€€He€said€he€wasÏin€his€apartment€when€he€heard€a€knock€at€theÏdoor.€When€he€answered€the€door,€he€wasÏconfronted€by€two€suspects.€€One€of€them,€heÏsaid,€was€Kevin€who€lived€next€door€and€heÏcouldnððt€describe€to€me€the€second€suspect€atÏall.€€He€said€they€demanded€money€and€KevinÏpulled€out€or€produced€a€nine€millimeter€¢Glock£Ïhandgun.€€€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ!vÓà  àThe€excited€utterance€exception€is€contained€in€Maryland€RuleÏ5„803(b)(2).€€That€rule€provides€that€ð ð[a]€statement€relating€to€aÏstartling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€¢declarant£€was€under€theÏstress€or€excitement€caused€by€the€event€or€conditionðð€isÏadmissible€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€In€other€words,Ïsuch€a€statement€is€admissible€if€it€ð ðððwas€made€at€such€a€time€andÏunder€such€circumstances€that€the€exciting€influence€of€theÏoccurrence€clearly€produced€a€spontaneous€and€instinctive€reactionÏon€the€part€of€the€¢declarant£€.€.€.€[who€is]€still€emotionallyÏengulfed€by€the€situation€.€.€.€.ðð€€òò¢Deloso£€v.€Stateóó,€37€Md.€App.Ð È"$ Ð101,€106€(1977)€(citations€omitted).ðððð€€òòState€v.€¢Harrell£óó,€348€Md.Ð €$Ð& Ð69,€77€(1997)€(quoting€òòHarmony€v.€Stateóó,€88€Md.€App.€306,€319Ð 8&ˆ!( Ð(1991)).€€Ìà  àThe€robbery€and€shooting€of€Barrett€was€unquestionably€aÏð ðstartling€eventðð€for€Barrett,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€63€Md.Ð H+˜&. ÐApp.€485€(1985)€(holding€the€statement€of€a€victim€of€a€robbery€andÏassault,€made€shortly€after€the€crime,€to€be€an€excited€utterance);Ïand€Barrettððs€statement,€describing€the€entry€by€the€two€intrudersÏinto€his€apartment,€and€their€demand€for€money,€clearly€related€toÏthat€event.€€Therefore,€the€only€issue€that€remainsñLñleft€for€our€considerationñLñ€is€whetherÏBarrettððs€statement€was€ð ðmade€while€[he]€was€under€the€stress€orÏexcitement€caused€by€the€event€.€.€.€.ðð€€Md.€Rule€œ5„803(b)ñMñ(ñMññNñ(ñNñ2).›€ÏThere€is€considerable€evidence€that€it€was.€€Ìà  àAgent€¢Hardick£€spoke€to€Barrett€within€ten€minutes€of€theÏshooting.€€At€that€time,€according€to€¢Hardick£ððs€uncontradictedÏtestimony,€Barrett€was€scared€and€nervous.€€Indeed,€on€a€scale€ofÏone€to€ten,€¢Hardick£€testified,€Barrettððs€level€of€excitement€was€aÏð ðseven€or€eight.ðð€€As€his€condition€worsened,€according€to€¢Hardick£,ÏBarrett€grew€even€more€frantic€and€scared.€€His€excitement,€¢Hardick£Ïstated,€only€began€to€subside€when€he€started€to€fade€in€and€out€ofÏconsciousness.€€No€evidence€was€ever€offered€by€appellant€toÏcontradict€this€testimony.€€The€trial€court€thus€properly€concludedÏthat€appellant€was€under€the€ð ðstress€or€excitement€of€the€eventððÏwhen€he€uttered€the€words€at€issue.Ìà  àMoreover,€the€only€argument€appellant€advances€in€support€ofÏhis€claim€that€Barrettððs€statement€was€not€an€excited€utterance€isÏthat€the€statement€was€given€in€response€to€a€question.€€That€factÏis€relevant€but€hardly€¢dispositive£€of€this€issue.€€òòSee€¢Harrell£óó,€348Ð x)È$, ÐMd.€at€77€(citing€òò¢Mouzone£€v.€Stateóó,€294€Md.€692,€699€(1982),Ð 0+€&. Ðòòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€¢Nance£€v.€Stateóó,€331€Md.€549€(1993));Ð ° ÐòòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€63€Md.€App.€485,€494„95€(1985)€(holding€that€aÐ h¸ Ðrobbery€and€assault€victimððs€statement€that€she€was€on€the€secondÏfloor€of€her€home€when€two€men€came€in,€knocked€her€to€the€floor,Ïkicked€her€several€times,€and€stole€two€dollars€was€admissible€asÏan€excited€utterance€even€though€given€in€response€to€a€policeÏofficerððs€question);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€3€Md.€App.€638,€640„41€(1968)Ð Ð  Ð(holding€that€a€shooting€victimððs€statement€that€he€had€been€in€anÏargument€with€his€son€and€that€his€son€had€shot€him€was€admissibleÏeven€though€given€in€response€to€a€police€officerððs€question€twoÏhours€after€the€shooting).€€We€therefore€conclude€that€BarrettððsÏstatement€to€¢Hardick£€was€admissible€as€an€ð ðexcited€utterance.ðð€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ&   ÔIIIó óÐ à ÐÓO†Óà  àFinally,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏimposing€separate€sentences€on€appellant€for€use€of€a€handgun€inÔ' [†ÔÏconnection€with€the€murder€and€the€armed€robbery€of€the€sameÏvictim.€€We€agree.Ìà  àIn€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€this€Court€held€that€ð ðuse€of€a€singleÐ #X$ Ðhandgun€against€a€single€victim€in€a€single€transaction€does€notÏpermit€the€imposition€of€òòconsecutiveóó€handgun€sentences.ðð€€56€Md.Ð l&¼!( ÐApp.€205,€219€(1983)€(emphasis€added).€€In€that€case,€we€based€ourÏholding€on€the€Rule€of€Lenity,€the€operation€of€which€Judge€¢Moylan£Ïdescribed€in€òòWalker€v.€Stateóó,€53€Md.€App.€171€(1982):Ð |+Ì&. ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€the€Legislature€intended€two€crimes€arisingÏout€of€a€single€act€to€be€punished€separately,Ïwe€defer€to€that€legislated€choice.€€òòGore€v.Ð \¬ ÐUnited€Statesóó,€357€U.S.€386,€78€S.€Ct.€1280,€2Ð 8ˆ ÐL.€Ed.2d€1405€(1958);€òò¢Bremer£€v.€Stateóó,€18€Md.Ð d ÐApp.€291,€343-345,€307€A.2d€503€(1973).€€€IfÏthe€Legislature€intended€but€a€singleÏpunishment,€we€defer€to€that€legislatedÏchoice.€€If€we€are€uncertain€as€to€what€theÏLegislature€intended,€we€turn€to€the€so-calledÏ"Rule€of€Lenity,"€by€which€we€give€theÏdefendant€the€benefit€of€the€doubt.€€òòSimpsonÐ ô D  Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€435€U.S.€6,€13-16,€98€S.€Ct.Ð Ð  Ð909,€913,€55€L.€Ed.2d€70€(1978);€òòUnited€StatesÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€¢Gaddis£óó,€424€U.S.€544,€547-548,€96€S.€Ct.Ð ˆØ  Ð1023,€47€L.€Ed.2d€222€(1976);€òò¢Ladner£€v.€UnitedÐ d´  ÐStatesóó,€358€U.S.€169,€173-178,€79€S.€Ct.€209,Ð @  Ð211-14,€3€L.€Ed.2d€199€(1958);€òòPrince€v.Ð l ÐUnited€Statesóó,€352€U.S.€322,€327,€77€S.€Ct.Ð øH Ð403,€1€L.€Ed.2d€370€(1957);€òòBell€v.€UnitedÐ Ô$ ÐStatesóó,€349€U.S.€81,€83-84,€75€S.€Ct.€620,€99Ð ° ÐL.€Ed.€905€(1955).Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓW‰ÓòòId.óó€at€201.Ð 8ˆ Ðà  àIn€òòJohnsonóó,€we€applied€the€Rule€of€Lenity€because€theÐ ð@ Ðlegislature€had€not€clearly€expressed€an€intent€to€allow€forÏmultiple€punishments€when€two€consecutive€sentences€were€imposedÏfor€the€use€of€a€handgun€against€a€single€victim€in€a€singleÏtransaction.€€òòSee€óó56€Md.€App.€at€218„19.€€The€robbery€and€murder€ofÐ ¬ ü! ÐCecil€Barrett€involved€a€single€victim€and€a€single€transaction.€ÏThe€question€we€must€decide€is€whether€the€handgun€sentences€areÏconsecutive€for€purposes€of€the€Rule€of€Lenity€when€the€handgunÏsentences€are€concurrent€with€the€sentences€for€their€underlyingÏconvictions,€but€the€sentences€for€the€underlying€convictions€areÏâ âconsecutive€to€each€other.€€Ð À*&- Ðà  àAppellant€received€a€twenty„year€sentence€for€armed€robberyÏâ âand€a€concurrent€twenty„year€sentence€for€use€of€a€handgun€in€theÏcommission€of€that€robbery.€€Appellant€also€received€a€thirty„yearÏsentence€for€murder€and€a€concurrent€twenty„year€sentence€for€useÏof€a€handgun€in€the€commission€of€that€murder.€€Because€appellantððsÏmurder€sentence€runs€consecutively€to€his€armed€robbery€sentence,Ïhis€sentences€on€the€related€handgun€offenses€also€runÏconsecutively€to€each€other€and,€therefore,€violate€the€Rule€ofÏLenity.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€should€have€sentencedÏappellant€on€only€one€of€the€two€handgun€offenses€to€avoid€theÏimposition€of€consecutive€sentences€for€ð ðthe€use€of€a€singleÏhandgun€against€a€single€victim€in€a€single€transaction.ðð€€òòSee€id.óóÐ d ÐÒ°Òò òÓÓJUDGMENT€VACATED.ó óÐ Ì Ðò òÌCASE€REMANDED€TO€THE€CIRCUITÏCOURT€FOR€BALTIMORE€CITY€FORÏPROCEEDINGS€CONSISTENT€WITHÏTHIS€OPINION.ó óÔ#†X‡ZXXX‘ þ#ÔÐ @ ÐÌò òCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€MAYOR€ANDÐ ì< ÐCITY€COUNCIL€OF€BALTIMORE.ó óÐ Ü,  ÐÒ°Ò