Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 53,Sept. Term, 2013.,53 |
| Parties | Joseph Leon HALL, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael T. Torres, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Robert Taylor, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.
We decide whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (“the circuit court”) abused its discretion in giving an “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction, and, if so, whether the abuse of discretion was harmless. We hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in giving the “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction; nonetheless, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the abuse of discretion was harmless.1
The State, Respondent, charged Joseph Leon Hall, Jr. (“Hall”), Petitioner, with armed carjacking and other crimes. In the circuit court, a jury tried Hall.
At trial, as a witness for the State, John Kim (“Kim”) testified as follows. On October 29, 2008, Kim was walking in the 800 block of Hollins Street in Baltimore City. Hall and another man approached and pointed guns at Kim. Hall and the other man with a gun told Kim “to get down on the ground,” and Kim obeyed. Hall and the other man with a gun took Kim's wallet, keys, and other effects. Kim stood up, and a third male (“the teenager”), appearing to be in his late teens, approached. Hall “forced” Kim to lead the way to where Kim's car was parked. Using Kim's keys, Hall unlocked the doors and got into the driver's seat. The other man with a gun “forc[ed]” Kim into the backseat.
Hall drove Kim's car to the M & T Bank ATM on Broadway. The teenager exited Kim's car with Kim's bank card. Hall drove Kim's car to a parking lot on Broadway. Hall told the other man with a gun to tie up Kim's wrists with rope, and the other man with a gun obeyed.
The teenager returned to Kim's car and said that he could withdraw only $500. Kim suggested trying another ATM. On two more occasions, Hall drove Kim's car to another location, where the teenager exited Kim's car with Kim's bank card. Afterward, while Hall was driving Kim's car, the other man with a gun removed the rope from Kim's wrists.
Hall drove Kim's car to a rail yard, where the teenager and the other man with a gun exited Kim's car. Hall then drove Kim's car to a shopping center, where Hall returned Kim's keys to Kim, wiped the steering wheel and door handles, exited Kim's car, and told Kim to drive away. Kim obeyed.
As a witness for the State, Detective William Bailey (“Detective Bailey”) testified as follows. On October 29, 2008, he interviewed Kim, who: (1) described Hall; and (2) did not tell Detective Bailey that he had any injuries. Detective Bailey did not record Kim's interview. On October 31, 2008, Detective Bailey met Kim at a police station, where he showed Kim a photographic array. Kim identified Hall's photograph. Detective Bailey did not record audio or video of Kim's identification of Hall. The circuit court admitted the photographic array into evidence.
On his own behalf, Hall testified as follows. A man named Sintel Colvin told Hall that someone wanted to buy 5,000 ecstasy pills. Hall agreed to sell 5,000 ecstasy pills for $5,000. On October 29, 2008, Hall went to Hollins Street, where he met and spoke with Kim and Colvin. Within ten minutes, a man named Justin Hopkins approached. Hall, Kim, Colvin, and Hopkins entered Kim's car. Hall drove Kim's car to the M & T Bank ATM on Broadway so that Kim could withdraw money for the ecstasy pills. Kim could withdraw only $500. Hall drove Kim's car to another ATM, but Kim could not withdraw any more money. Eventually, Hall sold Kim 500 ecstasy pills and exited Kim's car, which Kim drove away.
At a pretrial hearing on motions to suppress, the circuit court and the parties discussed proposed voir dire questions. Hall objected to a proposed voir dire question regarding whether jurors could convict without scientific evidence. The prosecutor responded that Hall's counsel might argue to the jury that the lack of DNA or fingerprinting evidence would necessitate an acquittal. The circuit court stated:
Prior to jury selection, the State again proposed that the circuit court ask during voir dire whether jurors could convict without scientific evidence. Hall's counsel again objected to the proposed voir direquestion. The circuit court stated:
Before the circuit court instructed the jury, the prosecutor asked the circuit court to give an “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction. Hall's counsel objected to the “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction “for the record” and stated that the instruction would intimate to the jurors that “it's okay if the State doesn't have forensic or physical or scientific evidence.” The circuit court overruled the objection and instructed the jury:
During the trial, you may have heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific test. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether a defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven, based on the evidence presented or lack of evidence, the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury convicted Hall of armed carjacking and other crimes. Hall appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Hall petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted. See Hall v. State, 432 Md. 466, 69 A.3d 474 (2013).
Hall contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in giving the “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction. Hall argues that the abuse of discretion was not harmless because, at trial, he disputed that he “accosted” Kim. Hall maintains that his encounter with Kim was a consensual drug transaction. Hall essentially contends that an absence of scientific testimony or investigative techniques was relevant to demonstrate that his encounter with Kim was consensual. Specifically, Hall asserts that the abuse of discretion was not harmless because the State did not offer into evidence: (1) an image that a security...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rainey v. State
...only if we could not say that the putative instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See , e.g ., Hall v. State , 437 Md. 534, 540, 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). "In order for the error to be harmless, we must be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influe......
-
Howard v. State
...generate error." We review a trial court's decision to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion. Hall v. State , 437 Md. 534, 539, 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). "[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the ......
-
Harris v. State
...give a jury instruction concerning inferences to be drawn from the absence of evidence for abuse of discretion. See Hall v. State , 437 Md. 534, 539, 87 A.3d 1287 (2014) (review of trial court's decision to give "anti-CSI effect" instruction). A trial court abuses its discretion if it commi......
-
Taylor v. State
...and curative CSI effect jury instruction, or analogous anticipatory grounds to ask a voir dire question. See Hall v. State , 437 Md. 534, 540–41, 87 A.3d 1287, 1290–91 (2014). By the same token, defense counsel's mere reference to, or argument regarding (or announced intent to argue), the a......