Hamilton v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1890,1890 |
| Parties | MICHAEL HAMILTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 114310011
UNREPORTED
Graeff, Shaw Geter, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, 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.
A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Michael Hamilton, appellant, of second degree murder and wearing and carrying a deadly weapon. The court sentenced appellant to 30 years' imprisonment for the conviction of second degree murder, to be served consecutively to a three-year sentence for the conviction of wearing and carrying a deadly weapon.
Appellant presents four questions for this Court's review, which we have reordered, as follows:
For the reasons that follow, we answer each question in the negative, and therefore, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
Chantay Walker and appellant began dating in November 2013. In October 2014, Ms. Walker and appellant lived together at 2008 Payson Street, sharing a house with several other individuals.
Prior to November 2013, Ms. Walker had been dating the victim, Kevin Jowers. They remained friendly after the relationship ended.
While dating appellant, Ms. Walker occasionally met with Mr. Jowers for drinks. Appellant "wasn't happy" with Ms. Walker's drinking.
On October 8, 2014, the day before Mr. Jowers was killed, Ms. Walker visited Mr. Jowers' mother at the hospital, and then she and Mr. Jowers went for a drink at Oxford Tavern, located at Fulton and North Avenue. Ms. Walker had "[t]oo much" to drink and went home. Appellant was upset when he saw Ms. Walker intoxicated.
In the afternoon hours of October 9, 2014, Ms. Walker saw Mr. Jowers again at Oxford Tavern. After purchasing drinks, Mr. Jowers and Ms. Walker exited the tavern and stood talking, just outside the store, with Mr. Jowers facing toward North Avenue and Ms. Walker facing away from North Avenue. Ms. Walker testified that, while they were talking, an unidentified individual came from behind Ms. Walker, "hit" Mr. Jowers in the face, and "took off running."1 Mr. Jowers then "took off running." Ms. Walker assumed that he went "to handle whoever had hit him," and she walked home.
That same afternoon, Eureka Ford was in a truck, at a stop light on Fulton Avenue, when she observed an altercation.2 After the light changed and Ms. Ford moved her work truck forward, she saw a man standing on the corner of Fulton Avenue "bleeding holding his neck," and she called 911. She then saw the man turn, walk toward an alley, and fall to the ground.
Ms. Ford testified that the injured man had been fighting with another man, who wore dark clothing and a "Gilligan-style bucket hat." She saw "both men fighting," and "it looked like they [were] swinging." The man with the hat fled the scene in the opposite direction from where the injured man was heading. Ms. Ford testified that a woman had been standing near the injured man prior to the fight, but she "moved back" during the fight and "ended up walking off" in the same direction as the man with the hat.
Sergeant Hillary Wheeler, a member of the Baltimore City Police Department, was in a marked patrol car at the intersection of North Mount Street and Fulton Avenue when she observed "two ladies waving." Sergeant Wheeler drove in their direction and saw a man lying face down on the concrete. Sergeant Wheeler got out of her car, ran over to where Mr. Jowers was lying, and saw that he was "bleeding very badly." When Sergeant Wheeler rolled Mr. Jowers over, she saw that he had a "catastrophic injury" above his collarbone, which was "arterial" and "spraying everywhere."
Sergeant Wheeler radioed for emergency assistance. The paramedics arrived approximately five minutes later, but Mr. Jowers died at the scene. Dr. Carol Allan, a State medical examiner, determined that Mr. Jowers had suffered "sharp force injuries," including "four stab wounds and eight cutting wounds," which were caused by a weapon "consistent with a single edged knife."3 Mr. Jowers' death was ruled a homicide.
Detective Frank Miller, a member of the Baltimore City Homicide Unit, was assigned to investigate Mr. Jowers' death. Detective Miller testified that there was a blood trail from the front of Oxford Tavern to where Mr. Jowers fell in the alley. No weapons were found on Mr. Jowers' person or along the blood trail.
Detective Miller learned that Mr. Jowers was with Ms. Walker prior to his death. After speaking with Ms. Walker, Detective Miller obtained a search warrant for her phone, to download information contained within the phone; the police subsequently found text messages and phone calls between appellant and Ms. Walker.
The police also searched appellant's phone and extracted data. Appellant sent several text messages to Ms. Walker, discussed in more detail infra, regarding Mr. Jowers, his concern about Ms. Walker's drinking, and the deterioration of their relationship.
Detective Miller also obtained a search warrant for the residence where Ms. Walker and appellant lived. The warrant was executed on October 11, 2014, and Detective Miller recovered, among other things, several items of dark clothing, including "a black bucket hat" and a black shirt with "some red spots on the sleeve." The red spots on the sleeve of the black shirt were identified as blood. DNA testing revealed that the "major portion" of the blood on the shirt belonged to Mr. Jowers. Biological material found on the collar of the black shirt belonged to appellant.
At trial, Ms. Walker identified the black shirt and the black bucket hat as the clothing appellant was wearing on October 9, 2014, the day of the stabbing. She also identifiedappellant as the individual shown in a video recording who was wearing a bucket hat and dark clothing and running away from the scene after the attack.4
James Moore, Ms. Walker's brother, testified that appellant and Mr. Jowers were involved in a fight in April or May 2014, the same day that appellant's brother, Raymond Hamilton, was scheduled to appear in court in Baltimore County. According to Mr. Moore, the fight occurred while he, appellant, and appellant's brother, Mr. Hamilton, were coming back from the courthouse. The State later introduced into evidence a true-test copy of Mr. Hamilton's conviction, which showed that he had a scheduled court date in Baltimore County on May 21, 2014.
Bonnetta Eads, a member of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, testified that, as part of her employment with the Department, she was responsible for listening to inmate telephone calls. As discussed in more detail, infra, she testified regarding a call made from jail on October 17, 2014, using appellant's personal identification number ("PIN"). In the call, appellant tells another male to tell an unnamed woman to "come to Court with alcohol on her breath" and tell another man to "push it back," referring to the date of a fight.5
As indicated, appellant ultimately was found guilty of second degree murder and wearing and carrying a deadly weapon. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that the "trial court erred in refusing to ask voir dire questions" he requested. The State contends that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to ask appellant's requested voir dire questions.
Prior to trial, defense counsel asked the circuit court to ask the following questions during voir dire:
The court declined to ask these questions.
The court did ask if any prospective juror had "strong feelings concerning the charges of murder and/or carrying a deadly weapon with intent to injure, such as knives." Twenty-two jurors answered the court's "strong feelings" question in the affirmative. Nine of those jurors stated that their "strong feelings" were due, at least in part, to harm to a friend or family member. For example, one juror stated: "My nephew committed suicide with a gun, and so gun violence is very emotional to me." Another juror stated that three family members had been murdered with a knife or gun, and the juror had "no sympathy for anybody with that charge." Other jurors stated that "high school friends" had been killed or "friends who [were] victims of homicide."
At the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury, including instructions regarding the State's burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the constitutional right not to testify. The court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial