Geathers v. State
| Decision Date | 15 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1974,1974 |
| Parties | DERRIAN JAROD GEATHERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 118081030
UNREPORTED
Kehoe, Gould, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Kehoe, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. See Md. Rule 1-104.
Derrian Jarod Geathers was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with premeditated murder and related crimes. His first trial ended in a mistrial after a jury was unable to reach a verdict. He was tried a second time. The jury acquitted him of premeditated murder but convicted him of first-degree felony murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on the person. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, with all but 60 years suspended. He also received a consecutive 10 years for use of a handgun, with the first five years without possibility of parole, and the court merged the remaining wearing, carrying, or transporting count. In his timely appeal, appellant asks us to address the following questions:
For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgments of the circuit court.1
Appellant does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence against him. We will summarize the evidence produced at trial to give context to the parties' appellate contentions. See Washington v. State, 180 Md. App. 458, 461 n.2 (2008).
On the afternoon of March 8, 2017, Sean Wood was shot to death on a Charm City Circulator bus near the intersection of 200 South Broadway and Gough Street in Baltimore City. The State's theory of the case was that the shooting followed on the heels of a botched theft of marijuana. According to the testimony of the bus driver, Broney Clanton, the incident began near the bus stop with two men arguing on the sidewalk. As Clanton was getting ready to shut the door and continue with his route, one of the men, later identified as Mr. Wood, tried to come through the front door, but tripped on the step. The second man then straddled the fallen man and shot him in the stomach with a black handgun. The shooter, described by Clanton as wearing all black and being "tall, slim, kind of dark skin, short haircut and tech shoes," then fled down Gough Street. Mr. Wood pleaded with the bus driver for help, and Clanton called for an ambulance.
Dana Smith was a passenger on the bus and a witness to the shooting. He testified that he was standing at the front of the bus when the shooting happened and "saw the whole thing." Smith related that the shooter and Wood were arguing on the sidewalk beforehand and then "wrestling" and "tussling" in the front of the bus, near the driver. Smith saw the second man shoot Wood in the stomach, using a black handgun. Smith identified appellantin a photo array after the shooting. At the trial, Smith identified appellant as the shooter, testifying that he saw him "clearly" and that "I'll never forget it [sic] what his face looked like."
Officer Patrick Zelno was one of the first Baltimore City police officers to respond to the scene, at around 2:46 p.m. A video recording obtained from Officer Zelno's body-worn camera was admitted without objection and played for the jury during trial. Statements from unidentified speakers identified the shooter's race and described the shooter as a male in his early twenties and wearing a black shirt and pants. Mr. Wood was transported to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he later died from his injuries. The medical examiner testified that he died of a gunshot wound to the abdomen and that the manner of death was homicide.
Baltimore City Police Detective Michael Vodarick testified that he had been the primary homicide investigator assigned to the case. He stated that appellant's name was provided as a possible suspect via a Metro Crimes Stopper tip. Video and still photographs from a City Watch closed-circuit camera located near South Broadway and Gough Street were admitted into evidence and displayed to the jury. Detective Vodarick testified that those photographs depict appellant, Mr. Wood, and several others near the bus stop shortly before the shooting.
In addition, and as will be discussed in part 2 of this opinion, still photographs from two video surveillance cameras from Acosta Dental Practice located on the corner of Broadway and Gough Street were admitted into evidence and presented to the jury over anobjection from defense counsel. Detective Vodarick identified appellant as being a person depicted on the video. He also testified that one image from the front of the dentist's office camera showed "Geathers holding what appears to be a gun."
As will be discussed in more detail, Detective Vodarick interviewed appellant following his arrest on April 28, 2018. A video of that interview was played for the jury during trial, over an objection from defense counsel. During the interview, appellant initially denied any involvement but later admitted that he was depicted in the video from Acosta Dental Practice.2 Appellant told the police that the shooting was a "mistake" and an "accident." However, he also made several other inculpatory statements during the interview.
Appellant first asks us to review the motion court's ruling denial of his motion to suppress the recording of his statement to the police on the grounds that it was not made freely and voluntarily. The State responds that reversal is not warranted because, under the totality of the circumstances, appellant's statement was voluntary and not tainted by coercion or other impropriety.
We begin with the record established at the motions hearing. Detective Vodarick testified that he had first developed appellant as a person of interest in the murder of Mr. Wood during the summer of 2017, and that the arrest warrant was issued in January 2018. Police arrested appellant at approximately 6:40 a.m. on February 28, 2018. Appellant was transported to a police station and arrived at around 7:00 a.m. He was placed in an interview room and his handcuffs were removed. There was an audio and video recording of what occurred in the interview room, including, but not limited to, appellant's interview by the police.
After transporting appellant to the police station, Detective Vodarick and other officers prepared and executed search warrants in connection with their investigation. During this period, which took approximately eight hours, appellant was confined in the interviewroom. During those eight hours, appellant was offered food and drink, as well as the opportunity to use the bathroom.
Detective Vodarick returned to the station and began his interview of appellant at approximately 3:00 p.m., along with Detective Richard Moore. Both detectives were unarmed. The interview room was described as a square room, measuring around 10 feet by 10 feet, with a table and three chairs. Appellant sat on one side of the table and Detective Vodarick sat directly opposite. Detective Moore sat at one end of the table. The entire interview was video recorded.
At the start of the interview, appellant was read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Appellant agreed that he could read and write and, in fact, read the pre-printed Miranda form aloud. The detective agreed that appellant did "stumble" over a few words, but he appeared to understand those rights. He initialed next to each of the listed rights and signed the bottom of the form. Appellant then agreed to speak to the detectives.
The interview proceeded and lasted approximately one hour and forty-five minutes and a recording of that interview was entered as an exhibit at the motions hearing. Detective Vodarick testified that he did not threaten appellant, did not make him any promises, did not imply that appellant should "confess and walk away," and did not display any weaponsat any time during the course of the interview.3 Appellant also did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, although he informed the detectives that he "uses Percocets." The detective further testified that no one in the room raised their voice during the interview. Appellant also never asked for an attorney.
Detective Vodarick also testified that appellant seemed to understand the role of the detectives and why he was being interviewed. Asked by the court to clarify, the detective agreed that he did not tell appellant of the nature of any charges against him but did inform him that the police were investigating a shooting that happened on Broadway and Gough Street. The detective testified that he believed that appellant realized he was in custody for purposes of the interview.
Detective Vodarick testified that, at the time of the interview, appellant was 18 years old and had had prior experience with the juvenile justice system. Appellant informed the detective that he had an outstanding juvenile warrant at the time of the interview, but had been waiting until he turned 18 years old to resolve the matter. He also informed the detective that he was not currently attending school for fear that the juvenile warrant would be served. Towards the end of the interview, appellant asked to call his mother and Detective Vodarick confirmed that appellant was given an opportunity to do so.
Over the course of the interview, Detective Vodarick showed appellant a series of photographs. Appellant identified a number of individuals in those photos, including himself. Then appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial