Fields v. State

Decision Date02 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. 751 September Term, 2005.,No. 753 September Term, 2005.,751 September Term, 2005.,753 September Term, 2005.
Citation916 A.2d 357,172 Md. App. 496
PartiesDarnell FIELDS v. STATE of Maryland Clayton Damon Colkley v. State of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Brian L. Zavin, Baltimore, MD, Brian L. DeLeonardo, Reisterstown, MD (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on brief, Baltimore, MD), for appellant.

Shannon E. Avery (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: DAVIS, KENNEY, and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR. (retired, specially assigned), JJ.

DAVIS, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants, Darnell "Pooh" Fields and Clayton "Coco" Colkley were charged with the first-degree murder of James "Buck" Bowens, the attempted first-degree murder of Yvette Hollie and William Courts the first-degree assault of Hollie and Courts, conspiracy to murder Courts and related weapons offenses. Trial was conducted from March 24, 2005 to April 1, 2005 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Glynn, J.) and a jury convicted Colkley of the second degree murder of Bowens, attempted first degree murder of Courts and both appellants of the assault of Courts in the first-degree and conspiracy to murder Courts, the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence and the unlawful wearing or carrying of a handgun. On May 24, 2005, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of forty-five years for Fields and life imprisonment plus fifty years for Colkley. Appellants appealed their convictions separately which we combine and restate as follows.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Did the trial court err when it received a jury note and never informed appellants, nor defense counsels, of the note, nor of what, if any, response the court would give, thereby denying appellants of the right to be present at a critical stage of the trial and the right to provide input for the court's response to the jury?

2. Did the trial court err in refusing to dismiss the charges against appellants based on the denial of a speedy trial considering that: 1) there was over a [twenty] month delay between appellants' arrest and trial; 2) the delay was overwhelmingly attributable to the State; 3) appellants continually demanded a speedy trial and argued against continuous postponements; and 4) the prejudice to appellants of such a lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration is apparent and well-recognized?

3. Did the trial court err in refusing to grant Fields' motion for a mistrial when a police officer, in response to a prosecutor's question, indicated that [eight] bags of marijuana had been found at a house where Fields resided, thereby corroborating earlier claims by a State's witness that Fields was a marijuana dealer?

The following issues are presented only by appellant Colkley:

4. Was Colkley tried in violation of Criminal Procedure Article § 6-103?

5. Did the trial court err in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial other crimes evidence as to Colkley?

6. Did the State present insufficient evidence to convict Colkley of conspiracy to commit murder?

Because we answer appellants' first question in the affirmative, we shall reverse appellants' convictions and remand for further proceedings. Although appellants claims that they were denied the Constitutional right to a speedy trial presents a close question in our view, we affirm the circuit court's denial of appellants' motions to dismiss. For guidance of the circuit court on remand, we shall reach the three questions raised only by appellant Colkley and the third question raised by Fields, affirming the trial court as to those issues.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case emanates from a shooting which occurred in the area of Lafayette Avenue and Port Street in Baltimore City on the evening of May 28, 2003, which left Bowens dead and William Courts and Yvette Hollie wounded. Following the shooting, co-defendants Fields and Colkley were arrested.

Neither Courts nor Hollie identified appellants as the shooters. Courts testified that, at the time of the shooting, he was sitting by himself on the steps of a house in the middle of the 1700 block of Port Street drinking beer and Jack Daniels. Bowens or "Buck" was down the street. At some point, Courts heard a car slam on its brakes. The car was gray and had "dark tinted" windows. Someone wearing a baseball cap — Courts did not see who as he kept his head down — "hopped out" of the car and shot him. Courts attempted to flee, but fell to the ground and the gunman stood over him and continued shooting. Courts was later taken to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was treated for ten gunshot wounds to his chest, stomach, side, back, hip and arm.

Courts subsequently learned that Bowens and Hollie had also been shot and that Bowens had died. Courts did not recall Bowens saying anything to him or to anyone in the gray car prior to the shooting. He also was not acquainted with Colkley or Fields and did not know why anyone, including Colkley and Fields, would want to kill him or Bowens.

Hollie testified that she was visiting friends on Port Street at the time of the shooting. While sitting outside drinking, she heard gunfire coming from the direction of Lafayette Avenue. Hollie attempted to get children playing in the vicinity indoors and, as she did so, she felt a stinging sensation in her right arm and realized she had been shot.

Hollie later gave a statement to Detective Sergeant Darryl Massey (hereinafter Sergeant Massey) in which she indicated that she looked up when the shooting began and saw a person getting out of a car in the middle of the street holding a gun. Hollie also stated that she knew Colkley from when she was a child and would have recognized him had she seen him outside that day. Hollie met prior to trial with Colkley's attorney, Howard Cardin, whom she advised that she did not see Colkley or Fields that day.

The sole witness to identify appellants as the shooters at trial was Jermaine "Polish" Lee. According to Lee, on May 28, 2003, he was sitting on the steps of a vacant house on Port Street drinking beer with Bowens and Courts when an "older model boxed four door" car rapidly pulled around the corner from Lafayette Avenue. Fields was driving the car, which had tinted windows. Lee and his friends were "on point," or on their guard, because of a shooting in January of that year, but Bowens told them to "chill" when he saw that Fields was driving the car. Bowens then approached the passenger side of the car with his hand "in his dip." At that time, Colkley opened the passenger door and came out of the car "in a falling motion," shooting Bowens in the chest. Bowens ran in the direction of Lafayette and Fields got out of the car and began shooting. The back doors of the car opened, but Lee did not see who got out because he ran away as well.

While fleeing, Lee turned down an alley and made his way to a friend's house to call for an ambulance. He went outside shortly thereafter and found Bowens lying on the ground in front of a store at the corner of Milton Avenue and Lafayette, but left without waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

Lee described Bowens and Courts as his close friends, but did not discuss the shooting with the police until his subsequent arrest where he was held without bail on July 2, 2003. Arrested with two other men, Qonta "Little Guy" Waddell and Broderick "Billy" Campbell, and a juvenile, Lee was charged with multiple handgun and drug offenses. On or around July 23, 2003, Lee informed a corrections officer that he wished to speak to the police and, within a few hours, he was transported to the police department, where he identified appellants as the individuals he saw exit the car on Port Street and shoot Bowens and Courts.

While he was in the Baltimore City Detention Center following his arrest, Lee was contacted by Derrick Tummer, a fellow inmate, who arranged a meeting with Colkley in the prison. At the meeting, although Colkley did not do anything to physically intimidate him, Lee testified that he agreed to sign an affidavit offered by Colkley because Lee "was scared for [his] life." On November 25, 2003, Lee met with Cardin and signed a statement indicating that, before meeting Colkley in the detention center, he had never seen Colkley before.

At the time of trial, the charges against Lee from his arrest in July 2003 were still pending and, additionally, he faced another charge for bringing drugs into a jail facility as well as a violation of probation for distribution of cocaine for which he could receive an additional six years in prison. Lee was unable to post bond until his bail was reduced by fifty percent in November or December of 2003. Lee had not been threatened or expressly promised anything in exchange for his testimony, but Lee admitted that he was "hoping it [would] maybe help [him] out" and evidence introduced at a motions hearing on March 22, 2005 indicated that he told the prosecutor and a detective that he believed he would get a benefit in his cases if he cooperated.

Waddell and Campbell, the men with whom Lee was arrested in July of 2003, recanted at trial statements to the police wherein they implicated appellants in the shooting. According to Waddell, who was given immunity to testify, he was with a woman named Tiffany Smith at a Holiday Inn on Moravia Road in Baltimore on May 28, 2003. Waddell denied that he knew appellants and stated that he was unable to identify either of them.

Within days of the May 28th shooting, Waddell, who admittedly sold drugs in the area of Lafayette Avenue and Port Street, was driving with David Courts, William's brother. David was shot and the car crashed into a bridge abutment. David was killed and Waddell was subsequently arrested and charged with possessing a handgun in the car, made bail and was arrested again on July 2, 2003 with Lee and Campbell.

The following day, Sergeant Massey took Waddell's taped statement, which was played at trial, in which he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Colkley v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 2, 2021
    ......Thereafter, Appellant's third and fourth trials each resulted in a mistrial. This appeal stems from Appellant's convictions following his fifth trial. Procedural Background In Appellant's first trial (2005), Appellant was jointly tried with his then co-defendant Darnell Fields. Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder of Bowens; attempted first-degree murder of Courts; conspiracy to murder Courts, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence; and wearing or carrying a handgun. However, we reversed and remanded for a new trial because Appellant had not ......
  • Grade v. State, 16
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • April 3, 2013
    ...at 758;Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 322, 765 A.2d 97, 122–23 (2001); Taylor, 352 Md. at 345–46, 722 A.2d at 68;Fields v. State, 172 Md.App. 496, 513–14, 916 A.2d 357, 367 (2007). Md. Rule 4–326(d) calls for open communication of all relevant information to the individuals whom the trial mo......
  • Hallowell v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 1, 2018
    ......He does not, however, point to any specific instance of impairment to his defense. Oppressive pretrial incarceration with its attendant anxiety and concern to the accused is generally afforded only slight weight. See , e.g. , Fields v. State , 172 Md. App. 496, 541–44, 916 A.2d 357 (2007) (assigning only slight weight to the defendants' pretrial incarceration); Wilson v. State , 148 Md. App. 601, 639, 814 A.2d 1 (2002) ("accord[ing] great weight to the lack of any significant prejudice resulting from the delay," where the ......
  • Hayes v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 25, 2020
    ......at 688–89, 944 A.2d 516 (no speedy trial violation for delay of thirty-five months); Hallowell , 235 Md. App. at 518, 178 A.3d 610 (no speedy trial violation for eighteen-month-twenty-two-day delay); Fields v. State , 172 Md. App. 496, 549–50, 916 A.2d 357 (2007) (no speedy trial violation for twenty-month delay). Our independent review of the Barker factors leads us to conclude that (1) the length of delay between arrest and trial was not egregious under the circumstances; (2) the reasons for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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