Gentil v. State
| Decision Date | 06 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2189,2189 |
| Parties | MICHAEL GENTIL v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 119120019
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Fader, C.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. Md. Rule 1-104.
We consider whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City correctly decided that the law enforcement justification defense did not apply to the conduct of Michael C. Gentil, the appellant, in this case. Mr. Gentil, then a sworn officer of the Baltimore Police Department (the "Department"), was off-duty when he became involved in an altercation in which he drew his firearm on Kevon Miller. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the court found that Mr. Gentil was not entitled to the benefit of the law enforcement justification defense because he was not acting as a law enforcement officer during the altercation. Mr. Gentil argues that he was entitled to the benefit of that defense because a reasonable law enforcement officer in his position could reasonably have taken the actions he took. He contends that the trial court erred in even considering whether he was acting as a law enforcement officer at the time and also in considering his subjective intent. We hold that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Mr. Gentil was entitled to the benefit of the law enforcement justification defense only for actions taken while he was acting as a law enforcement officer. We further hold that the court did not err in considering Mr. Gentil's subjective intent in finding that he was not acting as a law enforcement officer during his altercation with Mr. Miller.
Mr. Gentil also contends that the circuit court should have merged his convictions for first-degree assault and use of a firearm in commission of a crime of violence for sentencing purposes. However, the General Assembly has expressly provided for separate sentences for those crimes. Accordingly, we will affirm.
At approximately 9:45 p.m. on a night in January 2019, while off-duty, in plain clothes, and driving his personal vehicle, Mr. Gentil nearly ran into Mr. Miller while turning left at an intersection in Baltimore City. At the time, Mr. Miller was legally crossing the intersection to return to his nearby place of work while holding a full cup of hot tea. Although the accounts of Messrs. Gentil and Miller differ in important respects, it was undisputed at trial that following the near miss, Mr. Miller's cup of tea hit Mr. Gentil's car; Mr. Gentil stopped and exited his vehicle; the two exchanged hostile words; and Mr. Gentil drew his firearm, trained it on Mr. Miller, and directed Mr. Miller to the ground. Neither man knew the other before the incident or knew the other's identity until they met again at the police station later that night. The State's theory of the case was that Mr. Gentil was acting out of "road rage," not in a law enforcement capacity, and that he assaulted Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller's defense was that he was investigating a misdemeanor—the cup of tea thrown at his car—and took appropriate actions for his safety. We will briefly review the evidence before explaining how the trial court, proceeding in a bench trial, resolved the case.
Mr. Miller testified that after the near miss he stumbled backward and lost control of the cup of tea, which hit Mr. Gentil's car. Mr. Gentil then pulled over and exited his car, the two exchanged angry words, and Mr. Gentil pulled the gun from around his waist and pointed it at Mr. Miller. Mr. Gentil, who never identified himself as a police officer, then advanced on Mr. Miller with the gun still trained on him, called him vulgar and racistnames, ordered him to "lay flat on the ground," and asked him numerous times what he had thrown at the car. Mr. Miller complied with all of the instructions and explained repeatedly that the substance was tea. Mr. Gentil then put his foot on the back of Mr. Miller's head, causing his chin to hit the ground and "bust[] open," and demanded an apology, which Mr. Miller gave. Mr. Gentil eventually backed up toward his car with the gun still out and directed at Mr. Miller, got in, and left.
Mr. Miller then returned to work for a short time before deciding to go to the nearby Eastern District Police Station to report the incident. While replaying the events in his mind, Mr. Miller concluded that his assailant might have been a police officer based on the way he spoke and pointed his gun. As a result, while approaching the police station, Mr. Miller was looking for his assailant's car and eventually spotted it. At the station, Mr. Miller spoke with a supervisor who, at Mr. Miller's request, called in Mr. Gentil, who was then in uniform. The two spoke for approximately ten minutes, during which Mr. Gentil explained that he had pulled his firearm because he was uncertain what Mr. Miller had thrown at his car or whether Mr. Miller might have been armed. The supervisor offered to call in investigators to explore Mr. Miller's injury claim, but Mr. Miller declined. He also provided the supervisor with a false name, address, and phone number because he felt that the supervisor was not genuinely trying to help him. Outside the police station, two other officers stopped Mr. Miller, gave him some information about Mr. Gentil, and told him to contact the Internal Affairs Division. Mr. Miller did so the next day. Internal Affairs promptly conducted an investigation, with which Mr. Miller cooperated fully.
Mr. Gentil's version of events differed in important respects. He testified that he was on his way to work at the Eastern District Police Station at the time he encountered Mr. Miller, who was not paying attention while crossing the street. About three seconds later, he heard a "loud thud." When he pulled over to check for damage, Mr. Miller was "waving his arms" and advancing on him. Viewing Mr. Miller as a possible threat, Mr. Gentil drew his firearm and immediately identified himself as a police officer. When Mr. Miller continued to advance, Mr. Gentil ordered him to get on the ground. Mr. Miller complied, put his hands up, sat down, and explained that the substance he had thrown was tea. Once Mr. Gentil determined that Mr. Miller did not have a weapon, he decided to "tactically retreat" to his car, initially with his gun still drawn. Mr. Gentil testified that he never got closer than three feet from Mr. Miller, never touched him or kicked him, and never directed him to lie down.
After leaving the scene, Mr. Gentil proceeded to the station, where he informed his supervisor, Sergeant Laron Wilson, of his version of the incident, including that he had pulled his gun on an individual who was advancing on him and waving his arms. Sergeant Wilson directed him to write a report. While he was writing the report, Sergeant Wilson called him in to meet with Mr. Miller, who had shown up at the station.
Although his duty shift had not started at the time of the encounter, Mr. Gentil testified that he typically considered himself to be on duty at all times after "enter[ing] the confines of the City," including during that encounter.
The only witness to the incident other than Messrs. Miller and Gentil was Rhonda Cox, who was driving in the area at the time. Ms. Cox testified that she observed aCaucasian male in regular clothing exit his vehicle, "immediately" reach for his gun, and approach an African-American male on the street, who then went "from standing to lowering." The African-American male made "no motions other than the lowering." She called law enforcement to report the situation because she
The State also called Sergeant Wilson. On direct examination, Sergeant Wilson testified about the version of the encounter that Mr. Gentil provided that evening, including the claim that Mr. Miller "came running up on him screaming wildly and that Officer Gentil reported that he had to pull his gun, that he was fearful and he pulled his gun and proned Mr. Miller out on the street." Mr. Gentil did not tell Sergeant Wilson that he had any physical contact with Mr. Miller, and Sergeant Wilson did not notice any injury to Mr. Miller when they met. Although Mr. Gentil completed the incident report that Sergeant Wilson directed him to complete, Sergeant Wilson neglected to submit it and, as a result, was suspended the following day. Mr. Gentil was suspended at the same time.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Sergeant Wilson to authenticate and review certain Department policies, including Section 20 of Department Policy 302. Although Sergeant Wilson initially testified that an officer is "considered on-duty at all times" when "within the confines of Baltimore City," on redirect he reviewed the policy itself, including provisions stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial