Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 510, Sept. Term, 2017,510, Sept. Term, 2017 |
| Citation | 240 Md.App. 629,207 A.3d 675 |
| Parties | Derrick L. CARROLL v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Submitted by: Samuel Feder (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Karinna M. Rossi (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Fader, C.J., Berger, James A., Kenney, III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Kenney, J.Earl and Mary Ann Loomis were murdered during a home invasion in Port Deposit, Maryland in February 2015. A jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County convicted appellant Derrick L. Carroll of two counts of first-degree murder in addition to multiple conspiracy counts in regard to that event.
On appeal, appellant presents two questions for our review:
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
The Loomises were the grandparents of appellant's ex-wife, Kimber Carroll, who considered them her parents. It appears that appellant's relationship with the Loomises may have been initially cordial, but had deteriorated over time. According to Ms. Carroll's testimony, when she and appellant were dating in 2012 and she was living with the Loomises, she would sometimes sneak appellant into their house where he stayed without her grandparents' knowing. She explained that he was not "allowed to stay there" because of how the Loomises "felt about him," and that he had expressed to her that the Loomises disliked him. After Ms. Carroll and appellant married and moved into an apartment, the Loomises changed the locks to their home, and their relationship with her deteriorated as a result of her drug addiction. Appellant also used drugs and sold them.
Ms. Carroll's aunt testified that the week before the murder, Mrs. Loomis told her that she didn't like appellant and that she wanted her niece to "straighten out" and "stay away" from him. Appellant testified that he had had a good relationship with Mrs. Loomis, who was not opposed to him staying at the house, but he acknowledged that Mr. Loomis had expressed concerns about Ms. Carroll and appellant being together.
Both Ms. Carroll and appellant testified about an incident that happened in 2013, when, at the time, she and appellant had split up, and she was living with the Loomises. According to Ms. Carroll, she was due in court that day, and appellant stopped by their house to take her there. Mr. Loomis indicated that he would be the one to take her to court. Appellant and Mr. Loomis argued, and appellant attempted to get into the house. The confrontation ended in about ten minutes.
Appellant testified that the incident related to a custody hearing for their daughter, who was in foster care at the time. Appellant and his then fiancée, Lauren Bucaro, would be awarded custody, but only if Ms. Carroll consented. Appellant testified that, when he went to the Loomises' house to pick her up for the hearing, Mr. Loomis said that he would take her to court. Appellant and Mr. Loomis argued, but appellant did not attempt to enter the house and left after Mr. Loomis asked him to. He felt no ill will towards the Loomises because they helped support his daughter and he was grateful for that.
Appellant's mother, who had also helped care for appellant's daughter, testified that she maintained a good relationship with the Loomises. And, in a statement to police, appellant's girlfriend at the time, Kayla Way-Nunley, stated that appellant never spoke ill about Ms. Carroll's family.
At trial, witnesses gave conflicting accounts as to what took place on the night of February 22, 2015 and the following day. There is no dispute, however, that on the night of February 22, there was a gathering, referred to by witnesses as a "tattoo party," at Ellen Lough's trailer in Port Deposit with at least seven individuals present. They included appellant, Ellen Lough, London Anderson, Azu Azuewah, Ashley Browe, Kayla Way-Nunley, and a person known as "Hummer."1
Anderson2 testified that he was friends with Azuewah, that Lough was Azuewah's long-term girlfriend, and that he spent a lot of time in their trailer. During the party, appellant got tattooed on his hands by Hummer. According to Anderson, on the morning of February 23, appellant entered the trailer with "a couple of cases of guns, ammunition," and a blue or green Chevy S-10 truck was parked outside. Anderson helped appellant bring the guns inside. When Anderson asked appellant where he obtained the guns, appellant said that he had "robbed ... his daughter's grandparents,"3 and had "duct-taped their faces until they couldn't breathe."
Anderson testified that appellant, Lough, Azuewah, and Hummer discussed dumping the S-10 near White Marsh. They left the trailer to do so with appellant taking a taxi and the others riding in the S-10 or Lough's car. After returning to the trailer, Anderson slept; when he woke up, the guns were gone. Anderson denied any involvement in the burglary or murders, or that he had gone to the Loomises' house. He did not contact the police because he was scared.4
Browe testified that she was staying at Lough's trailer in February 2015. On the night of February 22, appellant was present at the tattoo party, along with Anderson and Azuewah, and got hand tattoos. Between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m. on February 23, Browe awoke to the sounds of appellant entering the trailer, bringing in "bags of guns" and saying "[y]ou guys left me."
Way-Nunley, who was, at the time, appellant's girlfriend, testified that she and appellant attended the tattoo party on the night of February 22, along with Anderson and Browe. When she woke up the next morning at 8:00 a.m., appellant was present and Anderson was gone. She saw a blue truck outside the trailer, which she and appellant drove to White Marsh. Lough and Azuewah followed in their car. According to Way-Nunley, she did not see any guns, jewelry, or documents.5
Way-Nunley gave police two statements which were played for the jury. In the first statement on February 26, 2015, she told police that she was with appellant throughout the night of February 22, and that they never left the trailer. However, Azuewah and Lough left and returned to the trailer repeatedly. Way-Nunley added that she can be a heavy sleeper and that appellant may have left without her knowing. If he "did anything" while she was asleep, "that's on him." She denied knowing anything about a crime.
In the second statement on March 17, 2015, Way-Nunley stated that, when she fell asleep on February 22, appellant was next to her watching television. She slept in a back room of the trailer, and when she woke up the next morning, she did not see any guns. But, she did overhear Lough arguing with Azuewah and asking, "why is this shit in here[?]" Appellant and Azuewah locked themselves in a bathroom and talked. At some point, Way-Nunley saw a greenish pickup truck parked outside, with Azeuwah in the driver's seat and appellant in the passenger seat. She was only "50 percent" sure about who drove, but the two of them dropped the truck off in a parking lot near Baltimore. She struggled to remember details because she was "pretty high that day."
Rebecca Garland lived in the trailer adjacent to Lough's. She testified that at about 8:30 a.m. on February 23, she saw a man whom she didn't know getting "black garbage bags out of the back of a blue pickup truck" that was "consistent with" Mr. Loomis's S-10. He was "hollering back and forth" with a woman whom Garland did not recognize. He and the woman took the bags into Lough's trailer. About an hour later, when Garland went outside to sit on her porch, the same man walked past her and they said "hi" to each other. When police asked Garland to identify the man shortly after the incident, she was unable to do so. But later, she was able to identify appellant based on an internet search of the Loomis murders, where his name and photograph appeared in a newspaper story. She did not, however, call the police to tell them. At trial, she identified appellant as the man that she saw.
Appellant testified that he and Way-Nunley came to the tattoo party and that he got his hands tattooed at approximately 9:00 p.m. Because his hands were sore and tender, he used heroin and drank a large amount of alcohol to numb the pain. He fell asleep in the trailer. When he awoke the next morning, Way-Nunley was with him. Anderson and Browe were not there, but eventually they returned to the trailer. Lough and Azuewah left that morning.
According to appellant, he did not leave the trailer on February 23. He repeatedly tried to call Azuewah, but Azuewah did not pick up. On February 24, when Azuewah and Lough had still not returned, he left in a cab. He did see and greet Garland, but on the morning of February 24, not the 23rd. He never brought guns into Lough's trailer or unloaded anything from a truck, and he denied ever seeing guns or the S-10 truck.
Neighbors and family members testified that they had last spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Loomis on February 22, 2015. They were unable to reach them on February 23, and Mr. Loomis's blue S-10 truck was missing from the Loomises' driveway. When Ms. Carroll and her aunt went to the house to check on them on February 25, they found Mr. and Mrs. Loomis's bodies in an upstairs room with their hands and faces wrapped in duct tape. Both had died of asphyxia from being wrapped in tape. There were bleach stains on and around their bodies, which had sustained chemical burns. It was unclear whether the burns were sustained before or after they had died.
Although the S-10 was missing, Mr. Loomis's Ford Escape and Mrs. Loomis's Honda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colkley v. State
...v. State , 462 Md. 67, 75, 198 A.3d 209 (2018) (Citing Ware v. State , 360 Md. 650, 682, 759 A.2d 764 (2000) ). In Carroll v. State , 240 Md. App. 629, 207 A.3d 675 (2019), we elaborated on the discretion of the trial court in determining the scope of oral argument:What exceeds the limits o......
-
Whittington v. State
...be admissible if the executing officers acted in objective good faith with reasonable reliance on the warrant.’ " Carroll v. State , 240 Md. App. 629, 654, 207 A.3d 675 (2019) (citation omitted). We review the suppression court's determination as to the applicability of the good faith excep......
-
Swails v. State
... ... relates to the evidence adduced in a case, the exercise of ... its broad discretion to regulate closing argument will not be ... overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion that ... likely injured a party." Carroll v. State , 240 ... Md.App. 629, 663 (2019) (quoting Anderson v. State , ... 227 Md.App. 584, 589 (2016)). See Whack v. State , ... 433 Md. 728, 742 (2013); Ingram v. State , 427 Md ... 717, 726-27 (2012) ... In ... determining whether there ... ...
-
Whittington v. State
...may be admissible if the executing officers acted in objective good faith with reasonable reliance on the warrant.'" Carroll v. State, 240 Md. App. 629, 654 (2019) (citation omitted).Fourth Amendment > Exclusionary Rule > Good Faith ExceptionThe exclusionary rule it is "not applied when law......