Francis v. State
| Citation | 56 A.3d 286,208 Md.App. 1 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 908 & 913,Sept. Term, 2011.,s. 908 & 913 |
| Parties | Tyrone FRANCIS and Milton Smith v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
208 Md.App. 1
56 A.3d 286
Tyrone FRANCIS and Milton Smith
v.
STATE of Maryland.
Nos. 908 & 913, Sept. Term, 2011.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Nov. 21, 2012.
[56 A.3d 290]
Michael J. Belsky (Megan E. Olezewski, Schlachman, Belsky, & Weiner, PA, Kenneth W. Ravenell, Milin Chun, Murphy & Falcon, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellant.
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Panel: ZARNOCH, MATRICCIANI, CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
MATRICCIANI, J.
[208 Md.App. 7]On May 4, 2010, the Grand Jury for Baltimore City indicted appellants, Baltimore City Police Officers Tyrone Francis and Milton Smith, on charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault in the second degree, conspiracy, and misconduct in office. On April 19, 2011, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City commenced trial, and on May 2, 2011, the jury returned its verdict acquitting appellants of all crimes but misconduct. On June 1, 2011, the court sentenced each appellant to eighteen months of confinement, all suspended, and to eighteen months [208 Md.App. 8]of probation. On June 7, 2011, appellants noted their appeals, which were consolidated on March 26, 2012.
Appellants present the following questions, which we have rephrased for clarity:
I. Did the circuit court err when it denied appellants' motions for mistrial on the grounds of improper and prejudicial remarks in the State's closing argument?
II. Did the circuit court err when it instructed the jury that the crime of misconduct in office includes “wrongful” acts?
III. Did the circuit court err when it denied appellant's motion for mistrial where the State failed to disclose certain inconsistent witness statements prior to trial?
IV. Did the circuit court err when it suspended a codefendant's trial and continued with appellants' defense and verdict?
For the reasons that follow, we answer no to each of these questions and affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
[56 A.3d 291]
Appellants were detectives in the Baltimore City Police Department, assigned to the “Violent Crimes Impact Division.” 1 On May 4, 2009, they were on patrol with a third detective, Gregory Hellen, in the area of the Gilmore Homes public housing development in west Baltimore. The detectives were wearing plain clothes and riding together in an unmarked blue van as an “overtime crime suppression detail” 2[208 Md.App. 9]when they encountered Shawnquin Woodland 3 and, after parting ways with him, encountered Michael Johnson, both of them fifteen-year-old area residents.
The details of these encounters are hotly contested, but it is undisputed that after driving around for some time with each of the young men, the detectives deposited Woodland in east Baltimore, approximately three miles from the Gilmore Homes, and deposited Johnson in Howard County, approximately ten miles west of the Gilmore Homes. Woodland walked the three miles back to his residence. In Howard County, Johnson called 911 from a gas station nearby, and at approximately 8:00 p.m., Officer Terrence Benn of the Howard County Police Department found Johnson where he had been left, wearing damp clothes without shoes or socks and appearing frightened.
Appellants were indicted on May 4, 2010, and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault in the second degree, conspiracy, and misconduct in office. They and Hellen moved to sever all charges and all co-defendants, but the circuit court denied their motion and ruled that the evidence in all cases and all counts was mutually admissible. Appellants elected to be tried by jury while Hellen chose a bench trial, and the joint proceedings commenced on April 19, 2011.
The State called Woodland to testify, and he provided the following version of the events of May 4, 2009. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Woodland was standing with his friend when the three detectives drove up and asked Woodland a question. When he did not respond and started laughing at his friend's joke, the detectives exited the vehicle, handcuffed him, and placed him in the van. Smith said that Woodland needed to “learn a lesson,” and the detectives made threatening statements as they drove. Woodland answered no questions, but when the detectives dropped him off in east Baltimore, Smith said, “Thanks for the information.” 4 Woodland spent forty-five [208 Md.App. 10]minutes walking home and, when he arrived, told Johnson and Myron Evans (Johnson's cousin) what had happened. The detectives were still there and approached the three young men, at which point Woodland walked away. Woodland saw the detectives leave, return, and confront Johnson, at which point Smith grabbed Johnson's shirt and forced him into the van.
Johnson also testified at trial and recounted the following facts. Francis was in the van when he called Johnson over and told him that Smith, seated in the back of the van, had something to say. When
[56 A.3d 292]
Johnson approached the van, Smith said that if Johnson “ever look[s] at him wrong or mug[s] him or something,” Smith would sodomize him. Johnson walked away and mumbled something, then Smith exited the vehicle, grabbed Johnson by the shirt and hands, and forced him into the van, where he told him that “the area was going to learn some respect.” Smith threw Johnson's phone battery out of the window and removed Johnson's shoes and socks before dropping him off in Howard County, where he called 911 twice and reported that he had been beaten and abandoned by the detectives.
Myron Evans, who had been with Woodland and Johnson earlier, and Cory Taylor, another young area resident, testified that the detectives returned to the Gilmore Homes development and threw Johnson's shoes and socks from the van. Taylor gave the shoes to Evans's sister, Shekia McCaskill, who testified that when she took them to Johnson's residence, he was on the steps of his house, visibly upset and without shoes.
On cross-examination, Woodland stated that he did not see the detectives throw Johnson's shoes and socks from the van when they returned to the Gilmore Homes. The defense confronted Woodland with a 2009 police report indicating that he had seen Johnson's socks and shoes thrown out, and asked whether he had told the State's attorneys the same thing. Woodland denied what was in the report, and he stated that he told both the police and the State's attorneys that he had [208 Md.App. 11]not seen Johnson's shoes thrown from the van. The defense moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the State had “an absolute obligation” to disclose Woodland's statements to the State's attorneys because they contradicted the police report of his statement in 2009. The court denied this motion, ruling that because the State had disclosed Woodland's police statement along with contradictory statements from other witnesses, it had satisfied its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Maryland Rule 4–263.5
When the defense cross-examined Johnson, he stated that he had called 911 twice from Howard County. He explained that in his first call, he told the operator that he had been “beaten up” by the police, but the dispatcher laughed and hung up, and Johnson had to call back and repeat himself. The second time, the dispatcher asked if Johnson had called a moment ago and eventually directed Officer Benn to Johnson's location.
Johnson said he had informed the police of these facts in 2009 and, more recently, had informed two State's attorneys. The defense moved for a mistrial, arguing that
[56 A.3d 293]
a 2009 police report and a 911 recording that the State disclosed in discovery did not indicate that Johnson made two calls or that the operator had laughed and hung up on him, and that the State therefore should have disclosed Johnson's contradictory statements made to the State's attorneys. The court noted that [208 Md.App. 12]phone records in evidence showed that Johnson had, in fact, made two calls to 911. Continuing, the court held that Johnson's statements were not material to appellants' guilt, but that they were impeachment evidence that should have been disclosed under Rule 4–263(d)(6). The court denied appellants' motion for a ten-day continuance but granted them one day to investigate the issue.
After the State rested, appellants' co-defendant, Officer Hellen, moved for a continuance to accommodate his trial counsel's schedule. The court granted the continuance and suspended only Hellen's bench trial, while the court proceeded with appellants' jury trial and verdict.
Of the three detectives, only Officer Francis testified for the defense. He explained that he believed Woodland was either under arrest or providing information on criminal activity, and that Johnson was put in the van because he was providing similar information. Francis also testified that none of the detectives made the remarks that Woodland and Johnson alleged. Finally, Francis stated that he drove into Howard County because he missed an exit on the beltway, and that Smith told him to leave Johnson in the county because Johnson requested to be left there.
Appellants concluded their defense and the court charged the jury. Appellants objected to the court's proposed misconduct instruction on the grounds that the crime of malfeasance includes only “unlawful” acts.6 The court denied appellants' objection and instructed the jury that the State had to prove that each appellant “corruptly did the unlawful or wrongful act” (emphasis added) of transporting each victim against his will to a location not of his choosing.
In closing, the State argued that the detectives' failure to follow proper police procedures was evidence that they were not conducting a legitimate investigation on the night in [208 Md.App. 13]question. The State recounted testimony from various police officials saying that officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ryan W.
... ... these charitable corporations for the costs of services provided to the foster children at a rate set by the Department and in line with the State budget. Id. at 5526(b)(1). [434 Md. 587]All of a child's resources, including survivor's disability insurance, are subject to allocation by the ... ...
-
Koushall v. State
...at 404, 44 A.3d 396 —but nonetheless wrongful—thus still satisfying the first element of misconduct in office, see Francis v. State , 208 Md. App. 1, 22-23, 56 A.3d 286 (2012) (stating that a defendant charged with misconduct in office could be convicted through proof of either unlawful or ......
-
In re Ryan W.
... ... these charitable corporations for the costs of services provided to the foster children at a rate set by the Department and in line with the State budget. Id. at 5-526(b)(1). All of a child's resources, including "survivor's disability insurance," are subject to allocation by the Department ... ...
-
In re Ryan W.
... ... sovereign immunity bar the Juvenile Court from ordering the Department to establish and maintain a trust account for Ryan with funds from the State Treasury? In the proceedings below, counsel for the Department conceded that $8,075.32 in OASDI benefits that it received for Ryan should not have ... ...