Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 23 May 2022
• Docket Number: 715-2020
• Parties: JAYLIN JEROME BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

JAYLIN JEROME BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 715-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

May 23, 2022

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CR-18-000442

Graeff, Shaw, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Raker J. Appellant Jaylin Jerome Brown was convicted in the Circuit Court for Harford County of Second-Degree Specific Intent Murder, First-Degree Assault, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony or Crime of Violence, and Possessing a Firearm while Under the Age of Twenty-One. He presents the following questions for our review:

"1. Did the lower court err in failing to ask Mr. Brown's requested voir dire questions?

2. Did the lower court err in permitting the State's firearms examiner to offer an unqualified opinion in this case?

3. Did the lower court err in excluding Mr. Brown's proposed expert from testifying concerning the scientific flaws and documented error rates in firearms and toolmark identification evidence?

4. Did the lower court err in finding (a) that Mr. Brown's statement was not the impermissible product of promises and inducements, where he was told that providing a helpful, cooperative, and remorseful statement would 'go[] a long way in a jury's mind'; and (b) that Mr. Brown knowingly and voluntarily waived his right against self-incrimination?"

As to question one, the State agrees with appellant that, under Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), the circuit court erred in failing to ask the requested voir dire questions about the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and the defendant's right to remain silent. Accordingly, we shall reverse and remand this case for a new trial. The State also agrees that, on remand, the trial court should consider the admissibility of expert testimony pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020).^[1] We shall also vacate the ruling denying appellant's motion to suppress his statement and remand the issue to the circuit court to reconsider whether the statement was admissible.

I. Background and Facts

Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury for Harford County. He was convicted by a jury and the circuit court imposed a total term of incarceration of sixty-five years, forty-five years suspended.^[2]

This case arises from the death of Thailek Willis on August 3, 2018. At trial, the State alleged that appellant murdered Mr. Willis.

On August 3, 2018, members of the Harford County Sheriff's Office found Mr. Willis in the driver's seat of a vehicle at the scene of a shooting. He had no signs of life. Two shell casings were recovered nearby. A bullet was recovered from Mr. Willis's body during an autopsy.

Three days after the shooting, appellant was arrested at gunpoint by between twenty and thirty officers of the Harford County Sheriff's Office. While in custody, appellant made a statement to the sheriffs. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his statement. We set forth the facts as presented at the suppression hearing.

At the time of this incident, appellant was fifteen years of age. His parents repeatedly tried to contact the sheriff's office to see their child, but they were not permitted to meet with him. Two detectives told appellant that they wanted to get his side of the story. They gave him food and water, and then they explained that they were investigating a homicide at Edgewood High School, that there was a warrant for appellant's arrest, that he was being charged as an adult with first-degree murder, that he was going to go to jail that day, and that there was "nothing" they could "do about that."

The sheriffs gave appellant a sheet of paper containing his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). They also read those rights to him. They asked him whether he understood, and he replied "not really." The detectives then re-explained his rights. They stressed that talking with them was "clearly up to" appellant. The following conversation then ensued:

"[APPELLANT]: Yeah, I feel what you saying.

DET. BERG: Okay. So you understand what I've told you?

[APPELLANT]: Yeah.

DET. BERG: What you've read? Okay, here's a pen just check the appropriate box . . . you understand what I just told you. Put your initials in that box.

DET. PILACHOWSKI: What'd you mark?

[APPELLANT]: Yeah.

DET. BERG: Are you willing to talk to me after being advised of your rights?

[APPELLANT]: What you mean?

DET. BERG: Are you willing to talk to us; you wanna talk tonight?

DET. PILACHOWSKI: We'd like your side of the story Jaylin. Stories are being told but only you know what you know. The . . . other people put words in your mouth.

DET. BERG: We've already spoken with people. People that were there that night, people that identified you as being there that night; we just wanna get your side of the story of what happened. I think it's my stomach.

DET. PILACHOWSKI: And mine.

DET. BERG: Yeah; sorry. You're also the first of 2 people that we're talking to.

[APPELLANT]: I don't got nothing . . .

DET. BERG: So you're willing to talk to us after being advised of your rights?

[APPELLANT]: Yeah.

DET. BERG: Okay. Have any threats, promises, force . . . duress been used to have you talk to us? Have we forced you to talk to us? And what'd you check off?

[APPELLANT]: Mm?

DET. BERG: What box did you check?

[APPELLANT]: No.

DET. BERG: Okay. And can you sign where it says signature of person being advised?

[APPELLANT]: I don't even know how to write cursive.

DET. BERG: How old are you?

[APPELLANT]: 15.

DET. BERG: Did, did they stop teaching cursive in school? They didn't teach you guys? What year did they stop teaching that?

DET. PILACHOWSKI: It's not too long ago.

DET. BERG: Alright.

[APPELLANT]: When I was going to the 3rd grade.

DET. BERG: Okay. And Detective Pilachowski is gonna sign here in the witness box. Alright, what happened Friday night?

[APPELLANT]: (Inaudible) know. Mm . . . I don't know for real.

DET. BERG: Something bad happened and I don't think it was meant to happen. Somebody died that night; they're never coming home. I had to go tell their mom and dad at 02:30 in the morning that their son was murdered; shot. Shot in the back. Bullet went through . . . bullet went through shoulder, through a lung and into his heart.

[APPELLANT]: Mm mm . . . that don't make sense . . . . Went (inaudible)."

The detectives asked appellant whether he knew someone named "Yotti" and whether and how that person was involved in Mr. Willis's death. The detectives asked appellant about his living situation, family, hobbies, and what he was doing on the night Mr. Willis died. They told appellant as follows:

"DET. BERG: And we know that sometimes things happen. We, we do this for a living. We talk to people every day and we know sometimes people do things and things get a little out of control and unexpected things happen. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just means something bad happened. And it's all in what you do after that happens. And being honest and up front, this stuff we all, already know is gonna look a lot better down the road to other people including the victim's family. His name is Thailek; do you know Thailek? He was a really good soccer player. Um, sold weed in the area and mom and dad at home; uh, brother at home.

DET. PILACHOWSKI: Sometimes good people make silly mistakes. It all happens. Like Detective Berg said, sometimes it just spirals out of control and sometimes you can't control that by what others do. Do you understand that? I think you'd feel better if you got it off your chest. Just tell us what happened. Did you set it up?"

Det. Berg asked appellant to "give me something to tell the parents." The detectives asked appellant if he "could take it all back, would" he? Appellant replied "I wish I could take back," and he stated "I don't even wanna be here . . . . I'm talking on this earth."

Detective Berg advised appellant as follows:

"If you were sitting in front of a jury, right; your court trial. You got all these people staring at you and they went back and watched an interview and they see that you're being remorseful, you're being respectful . . . which you are. But you're being remorseful and you're sorry about what happened and you're willing to cooperate, goes a long way in a jury's mind.

And like I said when things spiral out of control and I think you got caught up in something you weren't expecting. I think things went a little too far. But this is the time to tell us cause once, once you leave here tonight it, it's . . . you're not . . . you're gonna be sitting and thinking about stuff and other people are gonna have opportunities to talk. This is your time to tell your story and what happened that night. And we just wanna . . . we just wanna know what happened. I want something to go back and tell that family, you know what; it was an accident and they feel horrible about it. It was just stuff that spiraled out of control."

Appellant then made a statement to the detectives. He admitted that he had had an encounter with Mr. Willis the night Mr. Willis died, that he had brought a handgun to that encounter, and that the handgun had discharged at that encounter. He told the detectives that, in the aftermath, he had "almost killed" himself and had had problems sleeping.

The detectives asked appellant about that handgun. They said to him as follows:

"It's okay. I mean listen, I'm not sugar coating anything. You're . . . it's a lot of trouble here. You're in a lot of trouble. You know? And I think when you sit later and you're really . . . the weight of all this hits you, it, it's a big, big deal. And you got a family who loved their son they're never gonna see again,

...