Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2292 September Term, 2006.,2292 September Term, 2006. |
| Citation | 960 A.2d 1215,183 Md. App. 188 |
| Parties | Tracy Wendell ADAMS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Panel: HOLLANDER,* MARY ELLEN BARBERA,** and J. FREDERICK SHARER, JJ.
Tracy Wendell Adams was convicted of possession of cocaine and distribution of cocaine by a jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. He was sentenced to a term of 20 years incarceration.
Appellant presents three questions on appeal:
I. Did the trial court err in altering the order of calling jurors?
II. Did the trial court err in refusing the jury's request to review the tape of the alleged transaction?
III. Did the trial court err in granting the State's motion to quash a defense subpoena?
For the following reasons, we shall affirm.
At approximately 5:15 p.m. on September 21, 2005, Salisbury Police Officer Howard Drewer was working undercover, targeting drug sellers. He was alone in an unmarked van equipped with a camera that recorded from the driver's side window. The vehicle was also equipped with an audio device located atop the driver's side sun visor. As Drewer approached a residence at 671 West Main Street, he saw "numerous individuals standing in the front yard," and Drewer was waved down by a black male. Drewer leaned out the van's window and, in response to the man's question, responded that he wanted to buy "a 20," meaning $20 worth of crack cocaine. The man told Drewer to drive around the block and return; he did so, returning in approximately 30 to 45 seconds. When he arrived again at the location, a different black male approached the passenger side door and "pulled out a piece of crack cocaine." Drewer told the man to go to the driver's side, but the man opened the passenger door instead. After Drewer repeated that he wanted to buy "a 20," the man bit off a portion of a piece of crack cocaine and gave it to Drewer. Drewer gave the man $20 in return.
After Drewer drove away, he transmitted a description of the man who sold him the cocaine, and the clothing the man was wearing, to officers in a nearby vehicle, and told them the location where the exchange had taken place. At trial, Drewer testified that his description was of a "black male wearing a white tank top shirt, a black baseball cap which he was wearing backward, blue jean shorts and a small or light beard." Drewer testified that he had not seen anyone else in front of the residence at 671 West Main Street similarly dressed.
Drewer was questioned about his handling and processing of the contraband. He described his normal procedure for maintaining purchased contraband:
Once I obtain it, I have envelopes, small manila envelopes that I place the crack cocaine into that bag. I write on the envelope the location, the time, and a description of the suspect for purpose of my notes so at a later point when we actually type it into the computer I'll have a set of notes referring back to where it had taken place.
Drewer testified that, following his usual procedure, he packaged the crack cocaine into a small envelope that he placed into a larger manila envelope. He folded over the flap on the larger manila envelope and placed it in the pocket of the van door. Drewer further stated that the envelope "is normally stapled into the inside of my manila folder however, it was turned in as evidence already." After packaging the cocaine, Drewer drove to a predetermined area to review the video/audio tape.
Within an hour and a half after he left West Main Street, Drewer viewed photographs at a police office in Salisbury, in the presence of Corporal Yankalunas and Officer Ehrisman.1 The photographs were laid out side by side on a table before Drewer entered the room. After carefully observing the photographs, Drewer selected a photo, which he "immediately recognized to be the suspect that had sold crack cocaine to [him] in front of 671 West Main Street." Drewer told Yankalunas that the person in that photograph had sold him the cocaine, and initialed and dated the space below the photograph. The photograph, bearing Drewer's initials and date, was admitted into evidence.
Drewer made an in-court identification of appellant as the person whose photograph he had selected and, in addition, identified appellant as the man who sold him the crack cocaine on West Main Street. Drewer testified that he had "a face to face" view of the seller as he approached the vehicle, a side view as he walked around the vehicle, and again a "face to face" view when he opened the door of the van. Drewer explained that although the videotape captured the conversation, the camera did not record the transaction because appellant was on the passenger side of the vehicle, away from the camera. However, the State admitted the tape into evidence and played it for the jury.
On cross-examination, Drewer confirmed that he did not seal the smaller envelope. Defense counsel elicited that Drewer had not recorded the seller's height, weight, build, age, hair or complexion. Drewer further testified that he did not recall whether he had testified the previous Friday2 that he had driven around the block before buying the crack cocaine. Defense counsel further elicited that Drewer had made more than one or two drug purchases a day, on a daily basis, during the time in question.
Drewer testified that he wrote out the property sheet at 10:30 on the night of the transaction, and that he then knew appellant's name. He admitted that he wrote the wrong date—September 23, not September 21. On redirect, Drewer conceded that it looked like the date had been changed, but that the incorrect date was a "handwriting mistake" on his part. Drewer explained that he would have sealed the cocaine in a ziplock baggie on the date he seized it. He also testified that the chain of custody sheet attached to the front of the sealed bag bore the date "9-21-05" and that it was placed there when the drugs were put into the bag.
Officer Edward Fissel was one of the officers receiving a description over the radio from Drewer, while in the area of West Main Street and Delaware Avenue. The description was of "a black male wearing a white tank top shirt, blue jean shorts, black baseball hat with light beard, light facial hair last seen in the area of West Main and Delaware Avenue." Fissel, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, arrived at that intersection about three minutes after he received the description, where he saw a black male matching that description. Fissel stopped the man who, at his request, approached and answered his questions. The man told the officer his name was Tracy Wendell Adams. At trial, Fissel identified appellant as the person whom he stopped that day.
Catherine Savage, a Maryland State Police lab forensic scientist, testified that she received the heat-sealed package submitted by the Salisbury Police Department. Upon analysis, she determined that it was cocaine with a net weight of .1 grams.
Additional facts will be set out as needed in our resolution of the questions presented.
Appellant complains that the trial court erred in the jury selection process by not starting the calling of the venire from juror number one. After excusing several of the venire for cause, the court began seating the jury. The following occurred:
After twelve jurors were seated, defense counsel said, "We're satisfied, Your Honor."
Maryland Rule 4-312, as operative at the time of appellant's trial, provided, in pertinent part:
(g) Designation of List of Qualified Jurors. Before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the court shall designate from the jury list those jurors who have qualified after examination. The number designated shall be sufficient to provide the number of jurors and alternates to be sworn after allowing for the exercise of peremptory challenges pursuant to Rule 4-313. The court shall at the same time prescribe the order to be followed in selecting the jurors and alternate jurors from the list.
(h) Impanelling the Jury. The jurors and any alternates to be impanelled shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the list in the order previously designated by the court and shall be sworn. The court shall designate a juror as foreman.
Nothing in the rule requires the trial court to begin the selection of jurors in any particular manner.
Appellant relies on Spencer v. State, 20 Md.App. 201, 314 A.2d 727 (1974), in support of his view that the trial court committed reversible error. In Spencer, 50 potential jurors, the remaining jurors of three distinct panels, were brought into the courtroom at the same time. When Spencer and the prosecution began to exercise peremptory challenges, they first excused potential jurors from one panel. At that point, the State had used three of its ten peremptory challenges and the defense had used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kidder v. State
...added). Thus, there is no requirement that a jury be selected from a panel in any particular order. See, e.g. , Adams v. State , 183 Md. App. 188, 960 A.2d 1215 (2008), rev'd on other grounds , 415 Md. 585, 4 A.3d 499 (2010) (rejecting challenge to trial judge's decision to select jurors be......
-
Kidder v. State
... ... remaining in the order previously designated by the trial ... judge and shall be sworn.") (emphasis added). Thus, ... there is no requirement that a jury be selected from a panel ... in any particular order. See, e.g. , Adams v ... State , 183 Md.App. 188 (2008), rev'd on other ... grounds , 415 Md. 585 (2010) (rejecting challenge to ... trial judge's decision to select jurors beginning with ... seventh member of panel). And, of course, a defendant does ... not have a right to have any ... ...
-
Adams v. State Of Md..
...deliberations, “the jury sent a note requesting to see the videotape that had been admitted as [an] [e]xhibit,” Adams v. State, 183 Md.App. 188, 201, 960 A.2d 1215, 1222 (2008), prompting the following colloquy: “THE COURT: Mr. [Bailiff], you say you have a note. “[BAILIFF]: They want to se......
-
Adams v. State Of Md.
...deliberations, "the jury sent a note requesting to see the videotape that had been admitted as [an] [e]xhibit," Adams v. State, 183 Md. App. 188, 201, 960 A.2d 1215, 1222 (2008), prompting the following colloquy: "THE COURT: Mr. [Bailiff], you say you have a note."[BAILIFF]: They want to se......