Atkins v. State

• Citation: 26 A.3d 979,421 Md. 434
• Decision Date: 18 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 110,Sept. Term,2010.,110
• Parties: Amardo Annier ATKINSv.STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

421 Md. 434
26 A.3d 979

Amardo Annier ATKINS
v.
STATE of Maryland.

No. 110

Sept. Term

2010.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 18, 2011.

[26 A.3d 980]

Kelly Knepper–Stephens (George Washington University Community Law Clinics), Washington, D.C., for petitioner.Jessica V. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.GREENE, J.

[421 Md. 437] Petitioner, Armardo Annier Atkins (Atkins), was convicted, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, of three counts of Second Degree Assault. Before this Court, Petitioner argues that the trial judge abused her discretion by instructing the jury that the State was not required to shoulder its burden of persuasion by the use of certain categories of demonstrative, i.e. forensic, evidence. Specifically, Petitioner presented one question for our review:

Whether an instruction that the State need not use certain investigative and scientific techniques violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Maryland Declaration of Rights by undermining the defense's legitimate strategy and bolstering the State's case?

On this record, we shall answer the question in the affirmative. We hold that the trial judge's instruction to the jury on what the State was required to prove, in effect, relieved the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigative or scientific techniques instruction, as framed, was improper because it resulted in a non-neutral commentary on the evidence, or the absence of evidence, actually admitted, and invaded the province of the jury, thus violating Atkins's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. This conclusion, however, is based on the particular [421 Md. 438] facts in this case, and we do not hold that an investigative or scientific techniques instruction would be improper under different circumstances,¹ so long as the State is properly held to its burden, and the instruction regarding what the State must introduce in proving its case is properly related to the reasonable doubt standard.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On November 24, 2007, Petitioner's neighbor, Wesley Waterton, was entertaining

[26 A.3d 981]

a group of people in the basement of his home in Silver Spring. The group included Tiara Barrett and Alexis and Dominique Davis, twin sisters. Atkins and Ms. Barrett had a verbal disagreement, and Barrett phoned her ex-boyfriend, Michael Holland, to come pick her up from the party. The following sequence of events after Mr. Holland arrived is unclear because the witnesses gave inconsistent testimony during trial. What is clear, however, is that after Mr. Holland arrived, a physical altercation errupted involving the Davis sisters, Holland and Atkins. The victims, in varied stories, claimed that Atkins began shoving the women, and then Alexis Davis punched Atkins in the nose, breaking it. Then, Holland tried to break up the fight and Atkins stabbed Holland, and cut both Davis sisters. A witness, Adrian Nightingale, testified that he saw Atkins reach into his pocket and apparently remove something, which Nightingale was unable to describe. Although Nightingale did not see a knife, Nightingale testified that after he saw Atkins reach into his pocket, Holland held his side and fell to the ground.

Atkins, however, testified that once he was outside the Waterton home, Holland yelled at him and pushed him, and then Holland held Atkins from behind while the sisters [421 Md. 439] punched and kicked him. Atkins testified that he then removed his pocketknife from his pocket and opened it, and started swinging the knife in self defense, cutting Holland and the Davis sisters.² Atkins testified that after the fight, he left the Waterton home and threw his pocketknife in the pond behind the building. Atkins then returned to his own home, and his father took him to the hospital to have his injuries treated. After treatment, Atkins's father took him to the police station where Atkins gave a voluntary statement.

Three days later, police executed a search warrant for Atkins's home. Police removed a knife from Atkins's bedroom, which was contained in a box on top of a bed side table. The knife was a non-foldable black knife, approximately 12 inches in length overall with a 6 inch blade.³ Police, however, did not perform any scientific or forensic testing on the knife and there was no testimonial evidence from witnesses linking the particular knife found in Atkins's home to the crime. At trial, the State argued that the knife found in Atkins's home was the knife used to inflict the injuries on Holland and the Davis sisters.⁴ In contrast, defense counsel argued that the knife found was not the knife used in the incident, but instead maintained that Atkins used a foldable pocketknife to protect [421 Md. 440] himself. Although defense counsel objected to the admission of the large black knife at trial, the trial

[26 A.3d 982]

judge allowed the State to present the knife as evidence of the crime. On cross-examination of the police officer who found the knife at issue in Atkins's home, defense counsel questioned whether forensic testing could have been done on the knife introduced into evidence, highlighting the lack of evidence connecting the knife to the crime:

Defense Counsel: Detective, is there any blood on the knife?

Detective Parzych: Can I see it again?

Defense Counsel: You can tell by looking?

Detective Parzych: Well, you asked me a question.

State's Counsel: Objection. Is that a question or a rhetorical—

Defense Counsel: Yes, it is a question. Didn't you look at it before today?

Detective Parzych: Yes, I did.

Defense Counsel: Okay. You didn't see any blood on it back then, right?

Detective Parzych: No, I did not.

Defense Counsel: Or anything that appeared to be blood?

Detective Parzych: No.

Defense Counsel: All right. Is there any ... [a]re there any skin cells on there that might be invisible to the naked eye?

Detective Parzych: I'm not qualified to answer if there are skin cells on there.

Defense Counsel: Okay. All right. But there are people in the police department who are capable of looking for that kind of evidence, right?

Detective Parzych: Correct.

Defense Counsel: Okay. And, so, who looked for that?

Detective Parzych: I don't know.

Defense Counsel: Okay. You asked people in the police department to look for trace evidence before, right?

[421 Md. 441] Detective Parzych: Correct.

Defense Counsel: And you do that by filling out a form and submitting it to the Montgomery County Crime Lab, right?

Detective Parzych: Correct.

Defense Counsel: Okay. Did you do that with respect to any evidence?

Detective Parzych: No, I did not.

Defense Counsel: Do you know if anyone else did?

Detective Parzych: I don't.

Defense Counsel: Okay. But you're aware, aren't you, based on your experience, that the crime lab sometimes can detect fluids such as blood, or saliva, or things like that, skin cells, even when they're invisible to the naked eye, right?

Detective Parzych: Correct.

After the close of evidence but before closing arguments, the State requested the following instruction, which the trial judge gave over defense counsel's objection ⁵:

During this trial, you have heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not

[26 A.3d 983]

utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific test. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal [421 Md. 442] requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven based upon the evidence the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.(Emphasis added.) Finally, in its closing, the State argued, “[This case is] about a knife and deadly force. This case is not about young people out there pushing and shoving each other. This is about a knife.” Counsel for the State then sought to discredit the Defense's version of events, demonstrating that “[Atkins] is on the ground and he is reaching for his pocket knife, not that knife, a little pocket knife. And the reason why, ladies and gentleman, it's a pocket knife is because a pocket knife doesn't sound that scary.” The State then called the defendant's testimony “absurd” and stated again that a pocket knife, “doesn't sound very alarming, it doesn't sound very scary. But this [the large black knife], the one that he said he bought from a friend, now that's a different story, okay?” The State emphasized the knife repeatedly, arguing that “all of us agree here that it is the knife that makes this case serious.”

After deliberation, the jury found Atkins guilty on all three counts of assault. Atkins appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the trial judge abused his discretion in giving the above jury instruction. Atkins claimed that the judge “improperly commented on the evidence [and] directly contradict[ed] an appropriate defense argument.” In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions, relying on its prior decision in Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549, 922 A.2d 620 (2007), which upheld a similar instruction. The intermediate appellate court, in the present case, stated that the instruction “was a correct statement of the law, applicable to the facts, and not fairly covered by the other instructions given.” Atkins filed for certiorari and we granted the petition. Atkins v. State, 417 Md. 384, 10 A.3d 199 (2010). For reasons stated in this opinion, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

[421 Md. 443] DISCUSSION

“The right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the Maryland Declaration of...