Brown v. State

Decision Date02 September 2021
Docket NumberNo. 1103, Sept. Term, 2019,1103, Sept. Term, 2019
Citation258 A.3d 961,252 Md.App. 197
Parties Dru Darren BROWN v. STATE of Maryland
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Submitted by: Julia C. Schiller (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.

Submitted by: Menelik Coates (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Graeff, Berger, Patrick L. Woodward, Senior Judge, Specially Assigned, JJ.

Woodward, J.

From early 2017 until May 2018, Dru Darren Brown, appellant, sexually assaulted his girlfriend's teenage daughter, B.H., on numerous occasions at their home in Hagerstown, Maryland. On May 2, 2019, appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Washington County of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and multiple counts of sexual offense in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and sexual offense in the third degree. The court sentenced appellant to twenty-five years of incarceration on the sexual abuse of a minor conviction, followed by consecutive sentences of a total of twenty years suspended, with five years of supervised probation.

On appeal, appellant raises two questions for our review:

1. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions?
2. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress [a]ppellant's statements?

For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

B.H. was born on May 3, 2001. In February of 2013, when B.H. was eleven years old, she was living with her mother, Jennifer, and her younger sister, M.T., in Hagerstown, Maryland. At that time, Jennifer was going through a difficult divorce with M.T.’s father and had just moved with B.H. and M.T. from an abused women's shelter to a new home. Appellant, who was then living with his wife, Melonie, in Wisconsin, had been engaged in a three-year online relationship with Jennifer through a computer game called Ebony. Because of Jennifer's "rough divorce" and difficulty in handling her two daughters, appellant moved to Maryland in February of 2013 and moved in with Jennifer, B.H., and M.T. Appellant's and Jennifer's relationship blossomed, and she gave birth to a son, A.B., in January of 2014. In February of 2014, however, appellant convinced Jennifer to allow Melonie to move in with them. Within one year after Melonie moved in, appellant, Melonie, and Jennifer began sharing the same bedroom, and that arrangement continued through May of 2018.

When appellant moved in with Jennifer, B.H., and M.T. in 2013, he became the person who primarily disciplined B.H. At the beginning, appellant's discipline took the form of spankings, taking away toys, and lectures about B.H.’s behavior. In 2017, however, when B.H. was fifteen years old, almost sixteen years old, the discipline changed to sexual assaults. The assaults took place once or twice a month until May of 2018 when B.H. turned seventeen years old.

In May 2018, appellant, Jennifer, Melonie, B.H., M.T., and A.B. attended a Pagan Unity Festival in Tennessee. While on the trip, B.H. told her mother that appellant had been "touching [her] inappropriately," but her mother did not take B.H.’s revelations seriously. On May 21, 2018, Jennifer was helping B.H. get dressed and made a comment about how she did not want to touch B.H. inappropriately, a perceived jab based on B.H.’s claim. B.H. became upset and, while the rest of the family was out eating breakfast, B.H. locked herself in their hotel room, called her grandmother, and told her grandmother everything that appellant had done. B.H.’s grandmother called the police.

The same day, May 21, 2018, Detectives Jacob Masteller and Megan Hoffman of the Metro Nashville Police Department were dispatched to B.H.’s hotel in Brentwood, Tennessee on a report that "a teenage girl had disclosed sexual abuse by her mother's boyfriend." Upon arrival, the detectives found appellant waiting in the lobby. After introductions, the detectives and appellant went to the breakfast area of the hotel where the detectives conducted a recorded interview that lasted about two and one-half hours. After the interview, the detectives left the hotel without arresting appellant. The detectives then called their District Attorney and another detective, the latter being in contact with the Hagerstown police, and were advised to place appellant under arrest on a fugitive from justice warrant.1 Approximately thirty minutes after the interview appellant was taken into custody.

Appellant was charged in the Circuit Court for Washington County with one count of sexual abuse of a minor and a total of thirty-one counts of sexual offense in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and sexual offense in the third degree. A jury trial was held on May 1 and 2, 2019.

At trial, B.H. testified about the sexual assaults that appellant committed on her.2 She explained that appellant was the "father figure of the house" and the primary disciplinarian of all the children. When she was younger, appellant treated B.H. "like all the other kids," disciplining them through spankings or losing their toys. Appellant's discipline of B.H., however, changed to sexual assaults in 2017 when B.H. was fifteen years old, almost sixteen years old.

The circumstances surrounding the first sexual assault began when appellant went to B.H.’s bedroom to discipline her for having "an attitude." B.H.’s bedroom was located in the attic of the house and was the only room in the attic. Instead of spanking her as he had in the past, appellant asked B.H.: "Do you want a massage?" B.H. said that she did not, and appellant told her to take her clothes off. B.H. responded: "I can defend myself if I really need to," which prompted appellant to immediately "put his hands around [her] neck and shove[ ] [her] to the floor and h[o]ld [her] there for a few minutes." Appellant also "tried to choke [B.H.] out on the floor." B.H. struggled and tried to get away, but she was only 5’1," 130 pounds, at the time and appellant was "[a]bout a foot taller" and "double if not more" her weight. B.H. then complied with appellant's demand and took her clothes off; she did so "[b]ecause [she] was scared" of appellant "choking [her]" and because she did not want "his nasty hands touching [her] more than they needed to." Appellant told B.H. to lay a towel on the bed and lie down on her stomach, which she did. Appellant massaged B.H.’s back with "massaging oil," including touching "[a]ny part you can touch" of B.H.’s "butt." Appellant then told B.H. to turn over on her back, which she did because she "was scared." Appellant proceeded to put his hands between B.H.’s legs and insert "two to four fingers" into her vagina. Appellant "finger[ed]" B.H. for "about twenty minutes" that first time.

B.H. testified that the first assault was not an isolated occurrence. She explained that appellant continued to assault her and that the later assaults "always started the same way." Appellant would go to B.H.’s bedroom in the attic "always in the context of discipline." B.H. recalled that she would be punished for "the littlest things sometimes." If anyone else was in B.H.’s bedroom, appellant would order that person to leave.3 Appellant would instruct B.H. to lay a towel down on the bed, remove her clothes, and lie down on her stomach. B.H. testified that she complied with appellant's requests "[b]ecause every time, [she] was scared." Appellant "would do his massage and then he would ask [her] to flip over." Initially, appellant only inserted his fingers into her vagina, but things later "escalated," and appellant would insert his fingers into her vagina, perform oral sex on her, and insert his tongue into her vagina. He also would place his mouth on her breasts. The assaults stretched for longer periods of time after the first instance. B.H. recalled being touched in the manner described above about fifteen to eighteen times, once or twice a month, the last time being "a week or two before the festival" in May 2018.

B.H. admitted that after the first assault, appellant never choked her or physically held her down. B.H. said that she did not scream or shout for help because she was "afraid" and she allowed appellant "to do those things" "[b]ecause just looking at him remind[ed] [her] of how nasty he is and how forceful he is." B.H. explained further that she couldn't do anything about appellant's abuse, because "I knew if I told my mom, she wasn't going to believe me." According to B.H., her mother "always took [appellant's] side of the story" during arguments. During one of his assaults, appellant told B.H. that her mother was "not gonna do anything" about the attacks because she would "believe his words over [B.H.’s]," as B.H. was "just a rowdy teenager." When asked why she didn't try to fight against appellant, B.H. recalled telling appellant during the fourth or fifth assault that she had a work knife nearby. Appellant "convinced" her, however, that "it was [ ] illegal" for her to use the knife "even if it was for defense," and told her that, if she used the knife against him, she would "go to jail for it." Appellant also said that no one would believe her "because he was the adult and [she] wasn't." Finally, B.H. said that she never ran out of her bedroom during appellant's assaults because she didn't want to cause a scene in front of her mother and her mother "wouldn't believe [her] anyways."

On May 2, 2019, appellant was convicted of all charges, to wit, one count of sexual abuse of a minor, five counts of sexual offense in the second degree, six counts of rape in the second degree, and twenty counts of sexual offense in the third degree. On August 14, 2019, the circuit court sentenced appellant to twenty-five years’ incarceration for sexual abuse of a minor, followed by consecutive, suspended sentences of twenty years for second degree sexual offense, twenty years for second degree rape, five years for second degree sexual offense, five years for third degree sexual offense, and five years for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hutchison v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 6, 2023
    ... ... State , 425 Md. 326, ... 339 (2012)) ...          A ... sentence for multiplicitous convictions is illegal under Rule ... 4-345(a), as no one can be convicted or sentenced for the ... same offense contained in multiple charges. Brown v ... State , 311 Md. 426, 432 n.5 (1988) ("In Ball v ... United States , 470 U.S. 856, 864-65 (1985), the Supreme ... Court held that both multiple convictions and multiple ... sentences come within the double jeopardy prohibition against ... multiple punishment ... ...
  • Cartnail v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 24, 2023
    ...the court to determine whether the accused relied on" such an improper inducement when making the confession or inculpatory statement. Id. In other words, there must be "causal nexus." Id.[8] The court found that the officers "[p]romising to put something in a report about [Cartnail] not be......
  • Pineda-Duran v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 3, 2023
    ... ... must be met. See, e.g. , Madrid, 474 Md. at ... 329 (remarking that, in the absence of an improper inducement ... on which the suspect could have relied, the Court could not ... reach the ... second prong even if it had been so inclined) ; Brown v ... State , 252 Md.App. 197, 241 (2021) (not reaching the ... second prong after concluding that the first prong had not ... been met) ...          In sum, ... the Circuit Court's findings of fact were not clearly ... erroneous, and it applied the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT