Braxton v. State
Decision Date | 06 November 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 1355, No. 1354 |
Citation | 123 Md. App. 599,720 A.2d 27 |
Parties | Arnold BRAXTON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Eileen A. Canfield (Law Student admitted pursuant to Rule 16) (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, Denise Oakes Shaffer and Bradford C. Peabody, Asst. Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellant in No. 1353.
Denise Oakes Shaffer, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellant in No. 1355.
Emmet Davitt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Patricia Jessamy, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.
Argued before HOLLANDER, BYRNES and ADKINS, JJ.
On April 30, 1996, Mark Williams and Charles Carroll were robbed in Baltimore City by two men; one robber brandished a.25 caliber handgun and the other wielded a.38 caliber weapon. After the robbers fled the scene, the victims informed a police officer of what had occurred. Later that evening, the police apprehended the robber who had allegedly carried the .38 caliber weapon. Further investigation led the police to suspect that Arnold Braxton, appellant, was the robber who had used the .25 caliber firearm.
Subsequently, Detective Alvin Gwynn obtained Braxton's photograph and included it in a photo array that he displayed to Mr. Williams. After the victim identified appellant as one of the robbers, the detective obtained appellant's address from his arrest record, and then procured a search warrant for that address: Apartment 203, 4310 Seminole Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Several officers joined Detective Gwynn in executing the search warrant; the search led to the discovery of a .25 caliber weapon matching the description of one of the guns used in the robbery. Ballistics tests also linked the weapon to the murder of Melvin Alexander, Jr., whose body was found in his car on April 26, 1996. Consequently, appellant was charged with the armed robbery of Mr. Williams and Mr. Carroll, as well as the murder of Mr. Alexander.1 The legality of the search warrant issued for appellant's residence was a central issue below, as it is here. At a hearing held prior to the murder trial, the court (Alpert, J.) denied appellant's motion to suppress the fruits of the search. Thereafter, at two successive jury trials commencing in July 1997 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant was convicted of the first degree murder of Mr. Alexander ("Trial I" or the "murder trial"), the armed robbery of Mr. Williams and Mr. Carroll ("Trial II" or the "robbery trial"), and related offenses.2 At a joint sentencing hearing held on September 3, 1997, the court sentenced twenty-one year old Arnold Braxton to a total of life imprisonment plus 20 years.3
Appellant timely noted his appeal in each case. Although these appeals present a host of unrelated questions, we shall consider the appeals together, because they present identical challenges to the search warrant.4 Braxton presents the following questions for our consideration, which we have condensed and reformulated:
I. With respect to Trial I and Trial II, did the court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered during the execution of the search warrant issued for appellant's residence?
II. In Trial I, did the court err in permitting an expert witness to testify that the gun admitted into evidence met the statutory definition of a handgun under Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27 ž 36B?
III. In Trial I, did the court's erroneous submission to the jury of the attempted carjacking charge improperly influence the jury with respect to the first degree murder charge?
IV. In Trial I, was the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of first degree premeditated murder?
V. In Trial II, did the court improperly deny two unrelated motions for mistrial, each of which concerned objectionable testimony from two police officers?
VI. In Trial II, was the evidence sufficient to support the robbery conviction?
I. THE MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
With respect to both the murder and robbery trials, appellant moved to suppress the tangible evidence recovered during the search of Braxton's residence, including a .25 caliber handgun recovered from under the pillow of the bed located in appellant's bedroom. At the suppression hearing, appellant contended that the search was not based on probable cause, because the affidavit failed specifically to identify the subject premises as appellant's residence, and it did not indicate how the police knew appellant resided at the particular premises.
As the content of the warrant is critical to our resolution of the probable cause issue, we shall begin by setting forth the text of the affidavit appended to the search warrant application:5
Persons/Premises to be Searched:
Arnold Braxton, Jr.6 M/B/10-31-75 BPI# 440-492, 4310 Seminole Ave. Apt. A three story brick apartment building with the numbers 4310 affixed. Apt. 203 has a white door the numbers 203 on same.
Property to be Seized:
Your Affiant Does Attest to the following:
At the suppression hearing, defense counsel argued:
[T]here is nothing whatsoever in the affidavit that states why this particular premises was sought to be searched. There's nothing in there that indicates what the alleged connection is between Mr. Braxton and the premises at 4310 Seminole Avenue.
* * *
I think they have to have something in the affidavit that indicates that this is, in fact, his premises and there's nothing in the affidavit whatsoever to indicate that this is, in fact, Mr. Braxton's premises.
* * *
[I]t doesn't say he lives there, Your Honor. What the affidavit saysÔÇöit doesn't say anywhere that he lives there. What the affidavit says about the premises is precisely this. It says, "Person/premises to be searched: Arnold Braxton, Jr., M/B," male/black, It doesn't indicate in any wayÔÇö that's the one and only reference in this affidavit to that dwelling, to that address.
* * *
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herd v. State
...context of what the police could have done to verify a street address in a warrant application, we observed in Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599, 630-31, 720 A.2d 27 (1998): [T]he quantum of facts needed to show the connection between the suspect and the purported place of occupancy is hard......
-
Green v. Brooks
...v. State, 112 Md.App. 148, 160-61, 684 A.2d 491 (1996),cert. denied, 344 Md. 718, 690 A.2d 524 (1997)); see Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599, 620-21, 720 A.2d 27 (1998). As the Court explained in Exxon Corp. v. "Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances ......
-
Whiting v. State
...v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Braxton v. State, 123 Md.App. 599, 619, 720 A.2d 27 (1998). The Supreme Court and Maryland courts have consistently recognized that, subject only to a few well-established excep......
-
Thompson v. State
...of Sgt. Tompkins' intentional or reckless inclusion of misstatements in the affidavit for clear error. See Braxton v. State , 123 Md. App. 599, 645, 720 A.2d 27 (1998) (applying a clearly erroneous standard to review the circuit court's determination that a warrant affidavit was not tainted......
-
Permissible Scope of Warrant Execution
...yard because "premise" was intended to include "premises," and the shed was within the curtilage of the premises. In Braxton v. State, 123 Md. App. 599 (1998), the Court of Special Appeals held that a search warrant for an address that is believed to be the residence of the defendant must i......
-
Challenging A Warrant By Challenging the Affidavit in A Franks Hearing
...and devoid of supporting facts); Emory, 101 Md. App. at 633 (no evidence of "deliberate disregard for the truth"); Braxton v. State, 123 Md. App. 599, 644-46 (1998) (incorrect identification not intentional or reckless disregard for the truth). A showing of negligence or innocent mistakes i......
-
Particularity Requirement
...was sufficiently particular under the circumstances of that case. B. Particularity as to place to be searched In Braxton v. State, 123 Md. App. 599, 630 (1998), the Court of Special Appeals held that a search warrant was invalid because the affidavit (1) failed to specifically identify the ......