Handy v. State

Decision Date26 October 2011
Docket Number2007.,Sept. Term,No. 3043,3043
Citation30 A.3d 197,201 Md.App. 521
PartiesRaymond Carroll HANDYv.STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

201 Md.App. 521
30 A.3d 197

Raymond Carroll HANDY
v.
STATE of Maryland.

No. 3043

Sept. Term

2007.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 26, 2011.


[30 A.3d 199]

Celia A. Davis (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.Tennant D. Magee, Sr. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.Panel: EYLER, JAMES R., WOODWARD and J. FREDERICK SHARER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

[30 A.3d 200]

J. FREDERICK SHARER (Retired, Specially Assigned), J.

[201 Md.App. 526] Appellant, Raymond Carroll Handy, was charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with the first degree murder of Mark Christopher Jones, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony and crime of violence, and wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun. Appellant's first jury trial ended in a mistrial on March 27, 2006.

At the conclusion of appellant's second trial on December 13, 2007, the jury found him guilty of all three crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder, consecutive to a sentence already being served, followed by a consecutive sentence of 20 years for use of a handgun, the first five years without possibility of parole. The remaining handgun conviction was merged.

In his timely appeal, appellant asserts, as slightly rephrased, that:

1. The trial court erred in admitting into evidence portions of his statement made to police.

2. The trial court erred by failing to disclose notes received from the jury and by failing to comply with Maryland Rule 4–326 governing communications with the jury.

[201 Md.App. 527] 3. The evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the convictions.

Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mark Jones suffered fatal wounds in a shooting that occurred in the 2900 block of Greenmount Avenue in Baltimore City on May 1, 2005. He sustained three gunshot wounds to his back, one to the back of his left thigh, and one to his right forearm. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy opined at trial that Jones died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.

Duvalle Johnson, a firefighter/paramedic with the Baltimore City Fire Department, testified that on May 1, 2005, she was training with another firefighter paramedic, David Couvillion. During that afternoon, Johnson and Couvillion were traveling northbound on Greenmount Avenue in a medic unit, driving from a nearby hospital to the fire station located at Greenmount Avenue and 32nd Street. They observed the victim, Mark Jones, and appellant walking on the southbound side of Greenmount Avenue. After stopping briefly at the fire station, Johnson and Couvillion continued driving several blocks south on Greenmount Avenue. Appellant and Jones, apparently carrying a bag of groceries, were still walking southbound.

Johnson testified that, as she stopped the medic unit at a traffic light, she saw appellant remove a handgun from his waistband and point the gun at Jones. Jones turned to see appellant, and then tried to run away. At that point, appellant fired four or five shots in quick succession. Johnson, who was only 15 feet away from the shooting, clarified that she saw the first gunshot and heard the remaining shots. After the shooting, appellant, described as being five feet nine or ten inches tall, with a medium to light-brown complexion and with cornrows in his hair, ran north on Greenmount Avenue.

[201 Md.App. 528] As Couvillion described the events to their dispatcher, Johnson stopped the medic unit and began to treat Jones, who was unable to speak at the time. Johnson cut Jones's shirt off and noticed two holes in his chest. Jones was transported to Johns Hopkins Hospital. At appellant's second trial, Johnson identified appellant in court as the person who shot Jones. However, on cross-examination by appellant's

[30 A.3d 201]

counsel, Johnson agreed that she was shown a photo array on December 30, 2005, by Detective Robert Dohony, and was unable to make an identification of the shooter at that time.

At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Johnson was re-called as a defense witness. A videotaped portion of her testimony from the prior trial was played for the jury. The tape revealed that when Johnson was asked at the first trial whether she recognized the individual she saw shoot the victim, she replied, “I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that I do right now.” Johnson did not recall whether she identified appellant at the prior trial.

Also during the defense case, Johnson was asked on cross-examination, whether she remembered saying that she recognized appellant as the shooter. Johnson replied that “I said it at a point, but it wasn't in the courtroom when I did it. The initial time, that was the first time that I actually saw him in person.” Johnson testified that she “didn't exactly feel comfortable at that point when I looked at him, because I only seen him in passin', and then when I looked at him in court, I didn't honestly feel exactly comfortable and a hundred percent sure sayin' it right then and there when I said it.”

When asked whether she was certain of her identification of appellant during the second trial, Johnson replied: “I felt a hundred percent certain sittin' right there in that chair lookin' at the Defendant in his eyes that I saw that shoot. [sic]” On redirect, Johnson denied that her identification of appellant was based on the fact that she saw him at the prior trial because, according to Johnson, “I have nothin' to gain by doin' it.”

[201 Md.App. 529] David Couvillion, of the Baltimore City Fire Department, testified in the State's casein-chief that he was a firefighter/paramedic on May 1, 2005, and that he was the passenger in the medic unit being driven by Johnson. While they were driving, Couvillion heard gunshots and saw appellant shooting the victim, Mark Jones. Couvillion testified that he heard five shots and that he actually saw a black handgun being fired. He also saw appellant run past the medic unit, proceeding north on Greenmount Avenue until he turned left onto 30th Street. Couvillion further testified that appellant's hairstyle at trial was different because his hair was styled in cornrows on the day of the shooting.

Couvillion began treating Jones, who was “obviously in, in a lot of trouble. He had obvious gunshot wounds to his chest and after that he pretty much stopped breathing.” Couvillion and other paramedics attempted to advance an airway into Jones's throat and administered various drugs via an IV to attempt to restart his heart. Couvillion also went with Jones to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he stayed for approximately two hours.

Later that day, Couvillion spoke with police and was asked to look at a photo array. Couvillion identified appellant's photograph and then wrote on the back, “[a]s best as my recollection serves, serves me, the individual that I have selected on the back of this form is the man that closely resembles the man that I witnessed shooting another man.” When asked to explain why he indicated the photograph “resembles” the shooter, Couvillion explained that “the shooting occurred in a very dynamic and fluid setting and, and this picture is, is a 2–D representation of a man looking directly in my eyes, which is, you know, not exactly the way that it transpired on the street.” Couvillion testified that he did not have any doubt that the person he identified was the person

[30 A.3d 202]

who shot Jones.1

[201 Md.App. 530] Couvillion gave further detail about the location of the shooting and how long he observed appellant and Jones. Couvillion testified that he observed appellant for “a total of 10 seconds, ya know, from the beginning of the shooting to when he passed the medic unit to when he went around the corner.” Couvillion was asked how he could be so certain, and he replied that having a person shot in front of you “kinda stays with you” and that “it's very, it's extremely vivid.” Couvillion further testified:

When I heard the first two shots, I wasn't looking directly at them, but those first two shots brought my attention directly back to those two individuals who at that time were, it appeared to be they were walking towards me and the, Mr. Handy had come around from his left side and was shooting at, it looked like from my perspective in the chest and running back this way towards 30th Street and maybe three or four more shots after that.2

Theresa Manley testified that she was in the area near the shooting on May 1, 2005, and she saw appellant shoot Jones. Although Manley did not see a gun, she heard the gunshots. Manley testified that while she did not know appellant, she had seen him in the neighborhood on prior occasions. On July 6, 2005, Manley identified appellant in a photo array and wrote on the back of that array that “[t]his is the guy that I saw shoot Floyd on Greenmount Avenue.” Manley explained that she knew both Mark and Floyd Jones and that the brothers looked similar.

On cross-examination, Manley admitted that she gave a statement to police, in which she said she saw the shooter get out of a car, walk over, then shoot the victim. She told police [201 Md.App. 531] that the shooter got back into a car and left the scene. She also stated that she heard the victim say, “I've been shot.” After being asked to clarify her testimony, Manley, who earlier admitted to having problems with drugs, replied, “[y]ou know, on that day, I mean, I really don't really remember.” However, Manley testified that she saw appellant's face as he ran across the street after the shooting.

Kanakia Feagins testified that, after she was arrested in 2005 on a charge of drug distribution, she gave a statement to police concerning the shooting of Jones on May 1, 2005, on Greenmount Avenue. Feagins testified that she was on Bethel Avenue on or about May 13, 2005, when she encountered appellant. At that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Ballard v. Brian Calder Kerr, M.D., Silk Touch Laser, LLP
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...; Commonwealth v. Britto , 433 Mass. 596, 744 N.E.2d 1089, 1105–06 (2001) ; Flores , 965 P.2d at 902–03 ; Handy v. State , 201 Md.App. 521, 30 A.3d 197, 218 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011).Like most jurisdictions, Idaho has adopted the approach of allowing juror questions under the trial court's ......
  • O'Sullivan v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 17 Diciembre 2021
    ...elements of an offense or cause of action, and if believed by the jury, may be sufficient to support a verdict.4 Handy v. State , 201 Md. App. 521, 559, 30 A.3d 197 (2011) ; N.B.S., Inc. v. Harvey , 121 Md. App. 334, 342-3, 709 A.2d 162 (1998) ; United States v. Osborne , 886 F.3d 604, 613 ......
  • Devincentz v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 13 Agosto 2018
    ...is being offered , not the truth of the statement." Smith , 273 Md. at 161, 328 A.2d 274 (emphasis added); see also Handy v. State , 201 Md. App. 521, 540, 30 A.3d 197 (2011), cert. denied 424 Md. 630, 37 A.3d 318 (2012) (extrajudicial statement was not hearsay when offered for purpose of a......
  • Sissoko v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Abril 2018
    ...and willful. Md. Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 2–201(a)(1) of the Criminal Law Article ("CL"); see also Handy v. State , 201 Md. App. 521, 560, 30 A.3d 197 (2011). "Abuse" as defined in the crime of "Child abuse" in CL section 3–601 is "physical injury sustained by a minor as a result of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Say what? Confusion in the courts over what is the proper standard of review for hearsay rulings.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 18 No. 1, February - February 2013
    • 1 Febrero 2013
    ...were hearsay. Id. "The entries met the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule...." Id. (213) Handy v. State, 30 A.3d 197, 208 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (reviewing de novo whether hearsay evidence is issue of law), cert. denied, 37 A.3d 318 (Md. 2012). In Handy, t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT