Campbell v. State

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Ripken, J.
• Citation: Campbell v. State, 344 A.3d 687, 467 Md.App. 248 (Md. App. 2025)
• Docket Number: 2164
• Decision Date: 02 October 2025
• Parties: Deon T. CAMPBELL v. STATE of Maryland

344 A.3d 687

267 Md.App. 248

Deon T. CAMPBELL

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 2164, September Term, 2023

Appellate Court of Maryland.

October 2, 2025

Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No. C-03-CR-22-001477, Stacy A. Mayer, Judge.

Argued by Wyatt Feeler, Asst. Public Defender (Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Virginia S. Hovermill, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.

Argued before: Berger, Nazarian, Ripken, JJ.

Ripken, J.

In June of 2023, Deon Tyvon Campbell (“Appellant”) was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on multiple charges related to the murder of Tarik Purcell (“Purcell”). Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder among other offenses, for which he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Appellant noted this timely appeal.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Appellant submitted the following issues for our review:¹

I. Whether the circuit court erred in declining to suppress statements that Appellant made during an interrogation.

II. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it admitted a video of Appellant in a jail uniform and multiple pieces of evidence which depicted the murder and death of Purcell.

III. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it determined that video footage was authenticated.

IV. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of first-degree murder.

For the reasons to follow, we shall affirm Appellant’s convictions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND²

On May 16, 2021, Purcell was shot in the eye outside of The Spot Hookah Lounge (“The Spot”) in Baltimore County at 1:48 a.m. Officer Carlone (“Ofc. Carlone”)³ was the first officer to arrive at the scene. Ofc. Carlone arrived at The Spot approximately one minute after receiving a call indicating that a shooting had occurred. Upon his arrival, Ofc. Carlone described the scene as a “chaotic situation” in which everyone was “screaming and yelling.” He also indicated that there was a large crowd of people surrounding Purcell and that the people in the crowd were “irate” and “hostile.” Due to this behavior, Ofc. Carlone worked with another officer to keep the crowd separated from Purcell, attempting to secure the scene. Soon thereafter, the paramedics arrived. Again, due to the unruly behavior of the people in the crowd, the paramedics immediately removed Purcell from the scene—as opposed to the practice of stabilizing and treating a person before moving them—and drove Purcell to the hospital while rendering aid and attempting to stabilize him. Upon arriving at the hospital, Purcell was pronounced deceased.

Prior to the departure of the ambulance from The Spot, many patrons had quickly left the scene.⁴ Hence, the officers were unable to identify witnesses, and, additionally, limited pieces of physical evidence were recovered from the scene.⁵ Due to the limited physical evidence, Detective Christopher Needham (“Det. Needham”)—who, as the lead investigator on the case, was assigned to developing a suspect—began checking for surveillance cameras that could aid in the investigation. Law enforcement officers discovered multiple security cameras on the interior and exterior of The Spot and recovered serial numbers from those cameras.

Approximately nine months passed. In June of 2021, following the issuance of a search warrant, Det. Needham, his partner, Detective Eric Dunton (“Det. Dunton”), and other Baltimore County police officers obtained electronic video footage from Nest, the company that held the video footage of the surveillance cameras at The Spot (“the Nest footage”). The Nest footage was comprised of multiple video clips: two video clips of the interior of The Spot which portrayed people dancing, drinking, and smoking hookah; and video footage of the exterior of The Spot which portrayed the murder itself and depicted the death of Purcell. Based on the Nest footage, law enforcement obtained a photograph of a license plate, searched the Motor Vehicle Administration’s records, and connected the license plate information to the registered owner of the vehicle, Kari Brown (“Brown”).⁶ In November of 2021, Det. Needham interviewed Brown which aided him and Det. Dunton in developing Appellant as a suspect.

In February of 2022, Det. Needham conducted a recorded custodial interrogation with Appellant at the Baltimore County Police Department. During the interrogation, Det. Needham showed Appellant video clips of the Nest footage. The interrogation lasted approximately two-and-a-half hours. Appellant identified himself to Det. Needham in the interior video clips; however, while watching the exterior clips, he declined to identify the individual who appeared to be the same person as himself.⁷

In April of 2022, Appellant was indicted by a grand jury for eight counts related to the events that occurred at The Spot, including the murder of Purcell. Following multiple motions hearings, the case proceeded to a four-day jury trial in June of 2023. At trial, the State presented seven⁸ witnesses; Appellant did not testify and called no witnesses. The jury found Appellant guilty of four offenses: first-degree murder (Count I); use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence (Count III); wear, carry, and transport of a loaded handgun upon a person (Count VI); and illegal possession of a regulated firearm after a disqualifying conviction (Count VIII).⁹

Appellant moved for a new trial and requested a hearing. The State opposed Appellant’s motion. In January of 2024, the court held a hearing on the motion. Following arguments from both Appellant and the State, the court denied Appellant’s motion for a new trial and proceeded to sentencing. The court sentenced Appellant to the following periods of incarceration: life without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, twenty years for using a firearm in a commission of a crime of violence, and five years for possessing a regulated firearm after having a disqualifying conviction. The second and third sentences were to run concurrent with the first-degree murder sentence. This timely appeal followed.¹⁰ We incorporate additional facts as they become relevant to the analysis.

DISCUSSION

I. THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT ERR WHEN IT DECLINED TO SUPPRESS THE STATMENTS APPLLANT MADE WHILE BEING INTERROGATED.

A. Additional Facts

i. Det. Needham’s Custodial Interrogation of Appellant

In February of 2022, Det. Needham conducted a custodial interrogation of Appellant. Det. Needham explained to Appellant that he wanted to speak with Appellant regarding “something” with which Appellant “might be able to help” law enforcement. Det. Needham retrieved a “Baltimore County Police Department Miranda Rights Waiver” form (“the Miranda Waiver”) and placed it on the table in front of where Appellant was seated. Det. Needham slid his chair closer to Appellant so that Appellant could read the form as Det. Needham read Appellant his Miranda rights out loud from the form. Subsequently, Det. Needham read aloud each of the five Miranda statements, pausing after every statement to ensure Appellant understood. Det. Needham received a verbal affirmation from Appellant as to each of the five rights. Det. Needham proceeded to read the following statement, which appeared on the form in bolded uppercase text: “I have read and understand this explanation of my rights. My decision to waive these rights and be interviewed is free and voluntary on my part.” Det. Needham then asked Appellant, “Does that make sense?” In response, the following colloquy ensued:

[Appellant]: So I’m waiving, like I’m waiving all these rights?

[Det. Needham]: Yes. But if at some point you want to stop -

[Appellant]: I still got these rights?

[Det. Needham]: Oh, yeah.

[Appellant]: Okay.

[Det. Needham]: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. You have them, but you’re still going to - you understand them and you’re still going to talk to me.

[Appellant]: Okay.

[Det. Needham]: That’s all that means.

[Appellant]: Okay. Yes.

[Det. Needham]: If at some point you don’t feel like talking any more and you want to go -

[Appellant]: Okay, yeah.

[Det. Needham]: I’ll still get you a cigarette.

[Appellant]: Okay. Yeah, I’m good.

[Det. Needham]: And then we’ll roll.

[Appellant]: Okay.

[Det. Needham]: I’m just going to get you to sign right there for me. Take your time.

Appellant signed the Miranda Waiver¹¹ and engaged in a conversation with Det. Needham regarding his whereabouts and the events that occurred at The Spot on May 16, 2021. Their conversation lasted for approximately two-and-a-half hours.

During the interrogation, Det. Needham showed Appellant portions of the video clips from the Nest footage. The first video clip was from a camera in the interior of The Spot; it was in color and depicted patrons dancing, drinking, and smoking hookah. The second video clip was from a camera on the exterior of The Spot, facing the parking lot; it was in black and white and depicted the murder of Purcell. While watching the first video clip and talking with Det. Needham, Appellant identified himself and admitted to being at The Spot on the night of the murder of Purcell. After Appellant identified himself in the first video clip, Det. Needham identified Appellant in the second video clip based off Appellant’s distinguishing characteristics, i.e., his hair and the manner in which he walked. While watching the second video clip and talking with Det. Needham, Appellant did not identify himself outside, stating, “That’s not me, I can’t tell who it is. If you think it’s me, then (inaudible).” Appellant further explained that although he was at The Spot that evening, he did not remember anything from that night because of the amount of alcohol he consumed.

ii. Motion to Suppress and Subsequent Hearing

Prior to trial, counsel for Appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made while being interrogated by Det....