Goloko v. State, 031419 MDSCA, 441-2018

Docket Nº:441-2018
Opinion Judge:MOYLAN, J.
Party Name:ABOU GOLOKO v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Judge Panel:Wright, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Case Date:March 14, 2019
Court:Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
 
FREE EXCERPT

ABOU GOLOKO

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 441-2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 2019

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 117011010

Wright, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION [*]

MOYLAN, J.

The appellant, Abou Goloko, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by a jury, presided over by Judge Edward R. K. Hargadon, of sexual assaults in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degrees, of attempted burglary, and of attempted home invasion. On this appeal, the appellant contends 1.that both an out-of-court identification of him from a photographic array and a subsequent in-court identification of him by the crime victim should have been excluded; and

2.that, as a minor at the time of the crime, jurisdiction over his case should have been waived to the juvenile court.

The crimes occurred on November 18, 2016, at approximately 3:00 p.m. Victoria Parilla was biking back to her apartment from her classes at the Maryland Institute College of Art. As she was entering her apartment building, she was grabbed from behind and pushed into the vestibule by two young men. They initially asked her for her money, for condoms, and for her cell phone. They began looking through her backpack and asked for her keys.

The first assailant then began to assault the victim sexually, pulling down her pants and sliding his fingers into her vagina. The second assailant, who was the appellant, stood behind the victim during that sexual attack, putting his hand over her mouth while he groped her buttocks. When the victim began to scream, neighbors from the third floor heard her and began to come out of their apartments. At that point, the two assailants fled.

When the police arrived at the scene, they took the victim to the hospital for sexual assault medical screenings. The victim, who was an art student, sketched out pictures of her two assailants. She also worked with a police sketch artist. A day after the crime, the victim was shown a photographic array. We are told simply that the victim did not identify "the officer's suspect" but identified "one of the fillers." That recitation tells us very little. We have no idea who "the officer's suspect" was. We have no idea whether a photograph of the appellant was in the array. We don't know whether a photograph of the other assailant was in the array. We don't know whether photographs of both of them were in the array. It is an alleged fact that really does not tell us anything.

In any event, the victim came down to the police station on December 19, 2016, to look at two photographic arrays. The first did not involve the appellant and is not pertinent to the issue now before us. The second array, consisting of six photographs, did involve the appellant. The victim picked out the photograph of the appellant, the second of the six photographs in the array, as one of her assailants. That single photographic array of December 19, 2016, consisting of six pictures from which the victim selected the photograph of the appellant, is our exclusive focus as we look at the merits of the appellant's trial.

This appeal is in a sense unusual in that the major part of the appellant's well-reasoned and well-articulated argument turns out to be totally irrelevant.

In Jones v. State, 395 Md. 97, 109, 909 A.2d 650 (2006), the Court of Appeals explained what is sometimes a two-step inquiry. [T]he inquiry for due process...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP