Hannah v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Sept. Term,No. 151,2009.,151 |
| Citation | 23 A.3d 192,420 Md. 339 |
| Parties | Justin Ray HANNAHv.STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael R. Braudes, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.Diane E. Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA, JJ.MURPHY, J.
In the Circuit Court for Harford County, a jury convicted Justin Ray Hannah, Petitioner, of the attempted murder of his former girlfriend's new boyfriend. The State's evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed this offense in the early morning hours of April 15, 2007. After Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion, he filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in which he presented this Court with two questions:
1. In a prosecution for attempted murder, did the admission of defense evidence that [Petitioner] did not own or have access to a gun justify the admission into evidence of “rap” lyrics and associated drawings produced by [Petitioner] two years before the offense which dealt with guns and violence?
2. Did the trial court err in excluding evidence that a key State's witness had an ulterior motive to implicate the [Petitioner]?
We granted the petition. 411 Md. 740, 985 A.2d 538 (2009). For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Circuit Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine Petitioner about ten “rap” lyrics that he had written. As we are not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that this error was harmless, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct that the case be remanded for a new trial.
Background
Petitioner's former girlfriend testified as follows. She ended her relationship with Petitioner in early April of 2007. On the evening of April 14, 2007, while she was at the home of her new boyfriend, she received several telephone calls from Petitioner,1 who told her that he wanted to meet her new boyfriend. She and her new boyfriend agreed to meet Petitioner in the parking lot of a church on Cedar Church Road.
She and her new boyfriend arrived at that location about 3:00 a.m. on April 15th in a truck belonging to her new boyfriend's father. When they arrived, she received a phone call from Petitioner, who asked her if her new boyfriend was in the truck. When she answered yes to this question, Petitioner drove by the parking lot in his Ford Escort. Although she recognized Petitioner and his vehicle, and was able to see that there was a second person in Petitioner's vehicle, she was unable to identify that person. At this point, Petitioner rolled down the driver's side window, and either he or the other person in the Escort fired three shots at her and her new boyfriend. Fortunately, neither she nor her new boyfriend was injured.
Immediately after the shooting, she and her new boyfriend returned to his home and called the police. After the police arrived at that location, she received a telephone call from Petitioner. She put the call on speaker-phone so the officers could hear the conversation. Although she was able to identify Petitioner as the caller, she could not remember what Petitioner said. The State's case included testimony that during this phone call, the caller said words to the effect that, “Your boy's done, this is finished, that is why we popped shots.”
Petitioner testified that he arrived at his home at 12:07 a.m. on April 15, 2007 and never left until the next morning. He acknowledged that he and his former girlfriend had several telephone conversations on the night of April 14, 2007, but the only reason why he called her was to “explain to her that [he] wasn't messing around with other females[.]”
The following transpired during Petitioner's direct examination:
The following transpired during Petitioner's cross-examination:
(WHEREUPON, COUNSEL APPROACHED AND THE FOLLOWING ENSUED.)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tomlinson
...when relevant to charged conduct), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1236, 131 S. Ct. 1511, 179 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2011) ; Hannah v. State , 420 Md. 339, 357, 23 A.3d 192 (2011) (violent rap lyrics written by defendant were inadmissible because they were not relevant to motive or intent and served no purp......
-
Smith v. State
...it tends to have some adverse effect ... beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.’ ” Hannah v. State, 420 Md. 339, 347, 23 A.3d 192 (2011) (quoting King v. State, 407 Md. 682, 704, 967 A.2d 790 (2009)). We determine whether a particular piece of evidence is un......
-
Montague v. State
..."if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." He relies primarily upon Hannah v. State , 420 Md. 339, 343–44, 348, 23 A.3d 192 (2011), for this proposition.In response, the State argues that Montague's recorded statement was properly admitted becaus......
-
Burnside v. State
...entitled to a favorable verdict," and that "if the defendant is wrongfully found guilty, no real harm is done." Hannah v. State , 420 Md. 339, 347, 23 A.3d 192, 196 (2011) (quoting Jackson v. State , 340 Md. 705, 715, 668 A.2d 8, 13 (1995) (recognizing that "the defendant may be forced to c......
-
§ 9.05 RULE 403 "BALANCING"
...be prejudiced against a homosexual or bisexual individual, courts must safeguard against such potential prejudice.").[90] Hannah v. State, 23 A.3d 192, 196-97 (Md. 2011).[91] State v. Derbyshire, 201 P.3d 811, 822 (Mont. 2009).[92] See infra § 11.04 (determining admissibility of other-act e......
-
§ 9.05 Rule 403 "Balancing"
...when used colloquially."; but not in this case.).[90] United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 354 (9th Cir. 2010).[91] Hannah v. State, 23 A.3d 192, 196-97 (Md. 2011).[92] State v. Derbyshire, 201 P.3d 811, 822 (Mont. 2009). See also United States v. Gaines, 859 F.3d 1128, 1133 (8th Cir. 201......