Bonnett v. State

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 10 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 0193,0193
• Citation: Bonnett v. State, No. 0193 (Md. App. Jun 10, 2016)
• Parties: JAMES ELIAS BONNETT v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Wright, J.

JAMES ELIAS BONNETT v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 0193

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

June 10, 2016

UNREPORTED

Wright, Graeff, Eyler, James R. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In 1972, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, James Bonnett, appellant, was convicted of first-degree murder and of the unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a crime. He received a life sentence plus ten years for the handgun offense.

In February 2014, as a result of Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012),¹ the circuit court vacated Bonnett's conviction and granted him a new trial. On September 4, 2014, the court heard pre-trial motions before Bonnett's new trial. During this hearing, counsel from both sides agreed that there would be no testimony or evidence presented in relation to Bonnett's 1972 trial, the vacated convictions, or his 42-year period of incarceration. The State presented its case-in-chief before the jury on September 9, 10, and 11, 2014. At the end of the State's case, Bonnett moved for a dismissal and/or mistrial, claimingthat the State failed to make available certain physical evidence from the 1972 criminal investigation. Although the State claimed that this evidence did not exist, Bonnett testified to having personal knowledge of its existence. Bonnett's motion was denied. On September 11, 2014, Bonnett took the stand in his own defense; no other witnesses were called on behalf of the defense.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges, and Bonnett was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder charge and ten years to be served consecutively for the handgun charge. Bonnett filed a timely appeal to this Court in March 2015, presenting the following questions for our review:

1. Was Bonnett's sixth amendment right to effectively cross-examine a critical State witness improperly infringed upon when the Circuit Court refused to permit the witness to be questioned about Bonnett's first trial in 1972?

2. Did the Circuit Court abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial as a result of the State's failure to produce exculpatory physical evidence from the 1972 investigation at the new trial in 2014?

3. Did the Circuit Court abuse its discretion in failing to allow testimony about Bonnett's 42-years of incarceration and in turn err in denying a motion for mistrial based on the same grounds?

For the reasons discussed below, we answer Bonnett's questions in the negative and uphold the judgment of the circuit court.

Facts

Dianna Simpson and Bonnett were married in the summer of 1971, and for a short period of time lived together in Ms. Simpson's parents' house. The young couple had atumultuous relationship. About three or four months before Ms. Simpson's death, Bonnett moved out of the house.

On the morning of June 20, 1972, the couple attended a hearing where Ms. Simpson requested a separation and explained she no longer wished to continue with the marriage. The hearing judge ordered the couple to seek counseling and also ordered that Bonnett stay away from Ms. Simpson unless she consented to contact. Later that day, Bonnett called Ms. Simpson to tell her that he wanted to meet with her at her parents' house the next day because "no court was going to keep her away from [him]." That same evening, Bonnett purchased a double barrel sawed-off shotgun and one shell.

Bonnett arrived at Ms. Simpson's parents' house the next morning, with the sawed-off shotgun hidden in his pants. Bonnett would later testify that he brought the gun out of fear of his father-in-law and brother-in-law. Ms. Simpson's parents and her brother were not at the house that morning, but her younger sisters, Emmojean and Darlene, were there along with Ms. Simpson's daughter, Lorena, and two of Darlene's friends.

Emmojean, who was 17 years old at the time, was with Lorena in an adjoining bedroom, separated by a bamboo curtain, from Bonnett and Ms. Simpson. Emmojean testified that she overheard some of the conversation but did not step into the other bedroom for about ten minutes. Bonnett called Emmojean to "come here," but Emmojean ignored his command. She testified that through the bamboo curtain, she saw Bonnett pointing, what she believed at the time, an umbrella. Emmojean went into theroom, where the couple was talking, after she noticed a change in Ms. Simpson's tone. At this time, she noticed that Bonnett was "holding a double barreled sawed off shotgun," and he was pointing it at Ms. Simpson. Emmojean testified that Bonnett then grabbed Ms. Simpson by her robe and shot her in the stomach. According to Bonnett, after Emmojean came into the bedroom, there was some "pushing and shoving" and, as a result, the gun "went off" killing Ms. Simpson. After the shooting, Bonnett ran from the home. Bonnett testified that, as he recalled, there was no blood on his clothes. These clothes were not offered into evidence at the 2014 trial.

On the morning of the shooting, Ms. Simpson's youngest sister, Darlene, who was 12 years old at the time, and two friends were asleep in the den, when Darlene woke up to the noise of a "firecracker" and the smell of something burning. Darlene went back to sleep and was awakened minutes later by Emmojean, who told her, "Jimmy shot [Ms. Simpson]." At the 2014 trial, Darlene testified that she spoke to Bonnett by telephone approximately 3 to 4 times in the week prior to the date of the shooting. Darlene testified that Bonnett:

. . . would ask me if my sister was home. A lot of times she wouldn't be. He would say don't lie to me, is she there? I would say no. I would get a little frustrated and I might hang up. He would call back you know. He would say things like you don't want your sister to die, do you? If I see her or she comes out I'm going to kill her.

During one of these calls, Bonnett told Darlene that he demanded back the "pre-engagement" ring he had given Ms. Simpson. Darlene testified that she was able to return the ring to Bonnett, but admitted that she never mentioned the incident to thepolice during the 1972 investigation nor provide testimony at the 1972 trial about the ring.

The mother of Darlene's two friends who spent the night at the Simpsons' residence and were present on the morning of the incident, Ms. Rose Lindsay, was a neighbor of the Simpsons. At the 2014 trial, Ms. Lindsay testified that she was at Big Ben's market about a week before June 21, 1972, and saw Bonnett speaking with an unidentified gentleman to whom Bonnett said, "[I]f I can't have her, nobody going to have her and I'll kill her." On cross-examination, Ms. Lindsay testified that she knew about Ms. Simpson's death and the shooting but she never made a statement because the police never asked her any questions, and "nobody asked [her] any questions" until the State's Attorney called her about a week before the 2014 trial.

At the 2014 trial, Bonnett's attorney expressed to the circuit court:

I think by calling this witness [Ms. Lindsay] and asking these questions, the State has opened the door to say that this case went to trial once before. Prior to the last trial date this witness never came forward and said anything about what she is now testifying to. That would have been the time to do it. She was never called to testify at that trial. So I can't even impeach her on that because there is no testimony otherwise.

Bonnett's attorney then requested that he be allowed to make reference to the 1972 trial before the jury, to which the circuit court repeatedly responded, "Absolutely not."

Officer Laney Hester, a former Prince George's County police officer who worked as an evidence technician, testified about the crime scene report he created during the 1972 investigation of the shooting. The report indicated that photographs were taken of Ms. Simpson, the point of entry, and the path into the bedroom where the assault tookplace. The report also noted that shotgun pellets were found near Ms. Simpson's body and removed from the scene. Officer Hester testified that the medical examiner had taken a paraffin cast of Ms. Simpson's right hand for testing of gun powder residue. None of this evidence was presented in the 2014 trial. Other evidence that was not available to the defense during the 2014 trial included the clothes Bonnett was wearing the day of the shooting. Furthermore, because the shotgun Bonnett used on June 21, 1972, was never found, the State used a replica of the gun during the 2014 trial. Emmojean testified that the replica was substantially similar to the gun.

Discussion

I. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bonnett's request to make references to the 1972 trial.

Prior to the 2014 trial, both Bonnett and the State entered into an agreement by stipulation that there would be no reference to Bonnett's 1972 trial on the same charges or that he had been incarcerated on the charges since 1972. To the extent that witnesses were impeached with their testimony from the 1972 trial, the trial was referred to as a "prior proceeding." On the fourth day of trial, however, Bonnett communicated to the circuit court that he wished to tell the jury that he had been incarcerated on the charges for the previous 42 years, contrary to his counsel's agreement.

On appeal, Bonnett now claims that he suffered prejudice because the jury would wonder what he has been doing between the shooting in 1972 and the 2014 trial, while the State's witnesses produced testimony as to their professions during that time. Bonnett argued that he should be permitted to waive any prejudicial effect the introduction ofincarceration or the previous trial would have on him. At the 2014 trial, his counsel argued that the "blanket...