Collins v. State
Decision Date | 03 October 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 281,281 |
Parties | Adrian F. COLLINS v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
William E. Nolan (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Gregory D'Alesandro (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Panel EYLER, JAMES R., KENNEY and BARBERA, JJ.
EYLER, JAMES R., J.
Adrian Frayne Collins, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Harford County of attempted second degree rape1 (Count 5), two counts of third degree sexual offense2 (Counts 2 and 6), and child abuse (Count 7). Subsequently, after merging one of the third degree sexual offense convictions, the court sentenced appellant to twenty years' imprisonment for the attempted second degree rape conviction, a concurrent term of fifteen years' imprisonment for the child abuse conviction, and a ten-year suspended sentence for the remaining third degree sexual offense conviction.
On appeal, appellant contends that (1) the court erred in admitting out-of-court statements by the victim because it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, (2) the court erred in admitting testimony regarding other crimes in violation of Rule 5-404(b), and (3) the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction for attempted second degree rape. With respect to the first issue, the objection in circuit court was on the ground of hearsay. Subsequent to trial and conviction, the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and appellant now argues a violation of the Confrontation Clause. We hold that the first issue was not preserved for review because the only ground stated below was hearsay, and we decline to recognize plain error. Perceiving no error with respect to the second issue, and holding as to the third issue that the evidence was legally sufficient, we shall affirm the convictions.
We shall quote the relevant facts, as set forth in appellant's brief, omitting citations to the record. We will supplement the facts contained in appellant's brief as necessary.
On January 5, 2004, after jury selection but prior to opening statements, the court interviewed [K] in chambers. Subsequently, the court heard arguments in regard to the State's motion to introduce the videotaped interview between [K] and Ms. Boccelli, pursuant to Md.Code (2001), § 11-304 of the Criminal Procedure Article. The following colloquy pertinent to this appeal ensued.
Subsequently, the videotaped interview was played for the court. Both before and after the videotape was played, appellant's counsel argued that the videotape did not meet the "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" requirements of section 11-304(e), focusing predominantly on (e)(xii), which mandates that the court consider "whether the statement was suggested by the use of leading questions." At no time did appellant object to the videotape on the grounds that it violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.7
On January 6, 2004, the court ruled on the State's motion. In so doing, it stated the following with regard to section 11-304(e).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Battle v. State
...489 (1970) ("[h]earsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values"); Collins v. State , 164 Md. App. 582, 605, 884 A.2d 181 (2005) (recognizing the interrelationship between the two rules). The Confrontation Clause ensures that:"the accused has an op......
-
People v. Vigil
...for the district court to fail to raise the constitutional error sua sponte") (internal quotation omitted); Collins v. State, 164 Md.App. 582, 884 A.2d 181, 193-94 (Spec.App.2005) (finding that the defendant did not preserve his Confrontation Clause claim for review where defendant objected......
-
Cox v. State
...argument was that the testimony violated state rules against the admission of hearsay." The State cites to Collins v. State, 164 Md.App. 582, 602, 884 A.2d 181 (2005), cert. denied, 390 Md. 501, 889 A.2d 418 (2006), in which this Court declined to address an argument regarding the constitut......
-
Smith v. State
...be admissible under the Confrontation Clause, and vice versa. The required analyses under each are separate and distinct, Collins v. State, 164 Md.App. at 605-06, and a claim under one body of law does not preclude a under the other. In other words, even when admissibility of a co-defendant......