Engles v. State

Docket Number0128-2022
Decision Date01 May 2023
PartiesCHRISTOPHER JAMES ENGLES v. STATE OF MARYLAND
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No C-03-CR-19-000617

Wells C.J., Shaw, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION [*]

Wells C.J.

A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County convicted appellant, Christopher James Engles, of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The trial court sentenced Mr. Engles to life imprisonment for first-degree murder and concurrent 20-year terms for robbery with a dangerous weapon and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. In this appeal, Mr. Engles presents the following question for our review, which we have rephrased slightly:

1. Did the circuit court err in allowing the lead detective to testify that he had "eliminated" a person of interest as a suspect in his investigation and by denying Mr. Engles' motion for a mistrial?

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND[1]

At midnight on February 26, 2019, the police found Taylor Webb dead in the driver's seat of her parked car at the intersection of Hickory Falls Way and Hickoryhurst Drive in the Perry Hall area of Baltimore County. She had been shot to death. The car's engine was running and the passenger door was ajar. Neighbors heard gunshots in the area at approximately 11:15 p.m.

Ms. Webb had plans to meet Mr. Engles at 10:00 p.m. that evening. ELNesha Alston-Street, Ms. Webb's best friend, testified that she was aware of Ms. Webb's on-and- off relationship with Mr. Engles, which she described as "not good." On the day of Ms. Webb's murder, she and Ms. Alston-Street had spent the day together, and Ms. Webb shared with her messages she had received from Mr. Engles requesting to meet that night at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Alston-Street described Ms. Webb's mood as she left to meet Mr. Engles as "very excited, eager, happy."

Ms. Webb went alone to meet Mr. Engles. When Ms. Webb arrived at the meeting location, she sent Ms. Alston-Street an exact pin of her location. At 11:06 p.m., Ms. Webb messaged Ms. Alston-Street and said "Yes, I'm scared. He may kill me." At 11:10 p.m., Ms. Webb informed Ms. Alston-Street: "He's walking down the street." At 11:11 p.m., Ms. Webb texted that she was "nervous" and at 11:12 she texted, "oh, my goodness, he's coming." At 11:12 p.m., Ms. Webb texted her last message to Ms. Alston-Street: "Oh, my goodness, no."

The State introduced evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between Mr. Engles and Ms. Webb, including text messages and social media posts between December 2018 and February 2019. One Instagram post from Ms. Webb dated February 22, 2019, included a picture of Mr. Engles, and a caption referring to their relationship as "crazy" and remarking that she was surprised that they had not killed each other. Jasmine Smith, Ms. Webb's cousin, described Ms. Webb's relationship with Mr. Engles as "toxic."

The State introduced a text message from Mr. Engles to his friend, Nicholas Taylor, which stated, "I might have to kill this bitch Taylor." The State also introduced social media posts of Mr. Engles from February 2019; one showing him displaying a revolver, and the second, posted on the day of the murder, showing bullets. Bullet fragments recovered from Ms. Webb's autopsy were determined to be .38 caliber, 9 millimeter, or .357 caliber class, and they showed evidence of having been loaded for use in a revolver.

Mr. Taylor was Mr. Engles' close friend, and he lived on the adjacent street. Ms. Webb had been involved in an altercation with Mr. Taylor's sister, which had resulted in Ms. Webb cutting the woman's face with a knife. Ms. Alston-Street testified that on one occasion, she and Ms. Webb met with Mr. Engles and Mr. Taylor in the parking lot of a mall to buy drugs. Mr. Taylor was considered a "person of interest" in the investigation of Ms. Webb's murder. He was arrested after a police stop revealed a 9 mm handgun in his waistband. A search of Mr. Taylor's home revealed ammunition, marijuana, and various parts of a rifle. The handgun found in Mr. Taylor's possession was determined not to be the handgun used in Ms. Webb's murder.

Four days before her murder, Ms. Webb posted on Instagram that she had given an individual her number and he had inundated her with text messages and requests for pictures. Her post stated that she had blocked him on social media and felt "legit scared." Detective Young testified that he had attempted to identity the individual Ms. Webb had referenced in her post, but he was unable to determine the individual's identity.

Mr. Engles' defense, presented through cross-examination of the State's witnesses, was that Dillon Fahey, Nicholas Taylor, and the anonymous person who was stalking Ms. Webb on social media, all had motive to murder her. Mr. Fahey dated Ms. Webb in 2018 and their relationship ended in a "[v]ery bad" and "[v]ery emotional" breakup, approximately three months before she was murdered. Ms. Webb's altercation with Mr. Taylor's sister reportedly resulted from Ms. Webb's breakup with Mr. Fahey. Four days before her murder, Ms. Webb posted a lengthy message on social media directed at Mr. Fahey, stating: "You ... ripped my heart out and stomped on it like it was nothing and somehow I still wish you the best after all the foul shit that you did to me."

During the direct examination of Baltimore County Police Detective Scott Young, the prosecutor asked him what steps he had taken with respect to his investigation of Mr. Fahey. Over Mr. Engles' objection, the court allowed him to answer, and he responded that he had obtained Mr. Fahey's cell phone records and interviewed Mr. Fahey and three of Mr. Fahey's associates. The prosecutor then asked Detective Young whether he had eliminated Mr. Fahey as a suspect, and over Mr. Engles' objection, he responded, "yes." Mr. Engles moved for a mistrial, and the court denied the motion.

At the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury that any testimony that the court struck or told the jury to disregard was not evidence and should not be given any weight or consideration. As indicated, Mr. Engles was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. He noted a timely appeal.

DISCUSSION
I. Hearsay

Mr Engles argues that the circuit court erred in overruling his objection to Detective Young's testimony that he "eliminated" Mr. Fahey as a suspect. He asserts that Detective Young's statement was based on inadmissible hearsay and the statement invaded the factfinding function of the jury.

The State responds that Detective Young's testimony was admissible, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in overruling Mr. Engles' objection. The State asserts that even if the court erred, the error was harmless, and Mr. Engles is not entitled to appellate relief.

During the direct examination of Detective Young, the following colloquy occurred:

[PROSECUTOR]: What did you do with respect to your investigation as to Dillon [Fahey]?
[DETECTIVE YOUNG]: So I obtained cell phone records for Mr. [Fahey].
I conducted two interviews with him and then I interviewed three persons that were associates of his -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[DETECTIVE YOUNG]: So I interviewed three associates of his. Two of which were with him-
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, sustained. Strike that answer. Pardon me?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I ask that that be stricken.
THE COURT: I struck that portion of the answer. The jury is to disregard it.
[PROSECUTOR]: Based on what you were told, were you able to eliminate -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
THE COURT: I don't think she needs to finish that question. Sustained.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He can't possibly answer that question.
THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.
[PROSECUTOR]: Did you eliminate Dillon [Fahey] as a suspect?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[DETECTIVE YOUNG]: Yes.
[PROSECUTOR]: Did you look into anybody else?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: All right. You may approach.
* * *
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the reason for my objection is this has to be all hearsay and who is he to eliminate? He can't eliminate something.
THE COURT: It depends on the question. He's asked was he eliminated as a suspect.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: What right ... does he have to eliminate it? He's not -
THE COURT: He's the investigating -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He's not the judge and the jury.
THE COURT: It's cross-examination. Overruled.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. .. . I'm going to ask for a mistrial -
THE COURT: All right.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: .. . Based on that question and answer and other hearsay that has come in.
THE COURT: You want to be heard on your motion?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No.
THE COURT: All right. Motion for mistrial is denied.

(Emphasis added).

Maryland Rule 5-801(c) defines hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." A statement is "an oral or written assertion or . . . nonverbal conduct of a person[.]" Md. Rule 5-801(a).

Generally we review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. See Wise v. State, 471 Md. 431, 442 (2020). "Review of the admissibility of evidence which is hearsay is different. Hearsay, under our rules, must be excluded as evidence at trial, unless it falls within an exception...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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