Jackson v. State

Decision Date05 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. 01159,Sept. Term, 2011.,01159
Citation52 A.3d 980,207 Md.App. 336
PartiesTJ Sharocko JACKSON v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David M. Simpson, Greenbelt, MD (C. Todd M. Stewart, Upper Marlboro, MD), on the brief, for appellant.

Daniel J. Jawor (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: WOODWARD, WRIGHT, HOTTEN, JJ.

HOTTEN, J.

Appellant, TJ Sharocko Jackson, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for murder and related charges arising out of a home invasion.1 Appellant elected a jury trial, and the jury found him guilty on many, but not all of the charges.2 The circuit court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment, plus ten years. Appellant timely appealed, presenting the following argument for our review:

The Trial Court erred in disallowing a written statement of an unavailable declarant, when the appellant sought its admittance as a declaration against penal interest pursuant to Rule 5–804(b)(3).

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellant and Jamar Jones were charged with a multitude of crimes arising out of a home invasion on June 19, 2008, in which appellant and Mr. Jones allegedly broke into an apartment to steal drugs. The apartment was known as a “stash house,” where drug dealers stored their inventory. According to the State, appellant and Mr. Jones drove a van to the apartment. They entered the apartment and encountered three individuals. Appellant and Mr. Jones stole illegal drugs from the individuals in the apartment, but the target of the robbery, an individual known as “G,” was not present. Appellant and Mr. Jones then duct taped the three individuals and secured them in the rear of the van, before searching for “G.” After an unsuccessful search, they returned to the apartment. Mr. Jones reentered the apartment, bringing one of the other individuals with him, to resume the search for “G.” “G” later returned to the apartment with Andre Green. As they entered, Mr. Jones shot and killed “G” and wounded Mr. Green. Mr. Jones exited the apartment, whereupon he and appellant fled in the van.

Prior to appellant's trial, but after Mr. Jones had pled guilty in his severed trial, the State filed a motion in limine, requesting that the circuit court bar the admission of Mr. Jones's signed statement to appellant's defense counsel. In the statement, which Mr. Jones gave a day after the alleged incident, he indicated that appellant was not present during the commission of the crimes and was not involved in the home invasion. Mr. Jones's statement also suggested that he may have shot the victims in self-defense. Counsel for Mr. Jones indicated that he anticipated that Mr. Jones would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked about the events on June 19, 2008 at appellant's trial.3 In its consideration of the motion in limine, the circuit court reviewed the statement and heard in camera testimony from Mr. Jones and a law clerk for appellant's defense counsel, concerning Mr. Jones's written statement.

Mr. Jones's statement, which was handwritten on eight pages from a legal pad by appellant's defense counsel, signed by Mr. Jones, and later transcribed, provided:

This is a statement of Jamar Tonio Jones, dob 7/1/88, SSN ... of ... Martin Road in Brandywine, MD given on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 4:30 pm to Attorney Jon Norris and his law clerk Kathey Gravely, in Mr. Norris' office at 503 D Street, NW, Washington, DC. Mr. Norris and Ms. Gravely represent Mr. T.J. Sirroco [sic] Jackson.

On Thursday, June 19, 2008 around noon I was present at the apartment in Walker Mill when 2 people were shot. I went to the apartment with my friend Darren Johnson. TJ Jackson was not at the apartment when the shooting occurred.Darren and I went to the apartment because one of the guys in the apartment owed Darren some money for drugs. Darren said the guy owed him money for coke, cocaine. Darren asked me to go along with him so he could holler at the guy that owed him money. Darren and I were the only 2 who went to the apartment. The apartment, The apartment [sic] was in the 6600 block of Roland Road just off of Walker Mill Road.

When Darren and I got there, there were three people in the apartment. All 3 were brown skinned, lighter than me. I did not know any of them. They opened the door and let us in. Darren went in the back with one of the guys. The guy that went with Darren was short and heavy set. When they were in the back I stayed in the front room with the other 2 guys. When Darren and the other guy came out I heard them arguing. I could tell it was about drugs and money. Darren stumbled, he may have been pushed, I grabbed him to get out of there. One guy was by the door, blocking it, the door. One guy was by the couch. The guy by the door was reaching for something. I thought he was going for a gun so I pulled out my gun, a Glock 9 mm, and I started shooting, we ran out. I don't know if I hit anyone. Darren and I run to the van on the way to the van there was an older lady and a man outside. Darren grabbed them and pushed them in the van. At no time when this happened was T.J. Jackson around. I get in the van and I drive. I tell Darren that they can't stay in the van. Somewhere I stop and push the people out of the van. I drive Darren to D.C. and drop him off. I drive back into Maryland and I go to a house to look for my friend T.J. Jackson. When I found TJ I told him what happened, I told TJ to get in the van with me, because I needed to talk with him. As we drove I told him a little bit. I told him that a situation went bad and I had to start shooting. I wanted to go tell my father but he wasn't there. The van was parked by my Dad's house on the grass on the side. The Martin Road House. The police came to my house[;] when I saw them I started running. TJ started running behind me. We ran for a while, when we saw some workers we got them to give us a ride. That was my idea. They gave us a ride to a friend's house on Frank Tippet Road. TJ Jackson was not involved in this shooting. He did not know that it was going to occur.

This 8 page statement is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that it is true and accurate. I knew that I am making a statement against my penal interest which could be used against me. It is true and correct.

During his in camera testimony, Mr. Jones stated that he committed the crimes to which he had already pled guilty.4 He indicated that the day after the commission, he and appellant went to defense counsel's office, where Mr. Jones told defense counsel what occurred, including the shooting of “G” and Mr. Green. He recalled being in defense counsel's office, but did not recall defense counsel's law clerk also being present. Mr. Jones confirmed that he related the events to defense counsel, without appellant being present. He signed the statement, which defense counsel transcribed as Mr. Jones detailed the events, periodically confirming that the statement matched Mr. Jones's recollection.

In response to questioning from the circuit court, Mr. Jones recognized that he gave a statement to defense counsel, but averred that the statement was “not true.” In response to questioning from the State, Mr. Jones indicated that appellant suggested they go to defense counsel's office. A friend of appellant drove appellant and Mr. Jones to the office, because Mr. Jones knew that the police were looking for him and possibly his van. Appellant did not advise Mr. Jones that defense counsel represented appellant, but Mr. Jones knew that they were going to see defense counsel concerning the shooting. He and appellant went into the office, but Mr. Jones spoke with defense counsel outside of appellant's presence. He stated that defense counsel took notes while he detailed the events. Furthermore, he stated that he spoke with defense counsel in an effort to seek representation and that appellant agreed to pay for the representation because Mr. Jones did not have any money. He maintained that he did not meet with defense counsel to help appellant, but rather to help himself. He believed that providing the statement would not subject him to further risk of being criminally charged. He did not understand what giving “a declaration against penal interests” meant. He was a high school graduate, but did not write the statement himself nor did anyone ask him to. Instead, defense counsel wrote the statement as Mr. Jones described the events, without defense counsel explaining possible legal defenses or indicating that he represented appellant. Mr. Jones stated that defense counsel read the statement to him, and he signed at the bottom after skimming through it.

When asked where he obtained the information provided to defense counsel, Mr. Jones responded that he “made it up.” He refused to answer whether he gave the statement to keep appellant out of trouble, but indicated that at the time of the statement, he did not have a place to stay, other than with appellant. He maintained that he was not afraid of appellant.

On redirect by defense counsel, Mr. Jones acknowledged that almost three years had elapsed since he visited defense counsel's office. Still, even with the aid of his statement, he did not recall anyone other than defense counsel being present when he provided the statement. Mr. Jones recognized that defense counsel gave him the name and business card of another attorney, but indicated that this occurred after he gave the statement. Mr. Jones stated that defense counsel did not give him legal advice. Again, he concluded that appellant did not threaten him and that he was not afraid of appellant.

The circuit court then heard in camera testimony from defense counsel's former law clerk, who indicated that she worked for defense counsel on the occasion that appellant and Mr. Jones came to the office. It was her first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Galicia
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 27 Junio 2022
    ...of any of the other three co-defendants. In other words, unlike the declarant who made a self-serving statement in Jackson v. State, 207 Md. App. 336, 358, 52 A.3d 980, 992, cert. denied, 429 Md. 530, 56 A.3d 1242 (2012), Garcia-Gaona did not attempt to deflect guilt from himself to someone......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 26 Julio 2023
    ...declarant is an unavailable witness; and 3) corroborating circumstances exist to establish the trustworthiness of the statement.'" Jackson, 207 Md.App. at 336 Roebuck, 148 Md.App. at 578). More specifically, in determining whether the proffered statement is sufficiently self-inculpatory to ......
  • Cottmeyer v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 17 Julio 2017
    ...case is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. In Jackson v. State, 207 Md. App. 336, 348-49, cert. denied, 429 Md. 530 (2012), we explained:For a statement to be admissible under Rule 5-804(b)(3), the proponent of the statem......
  • Balt. Police Dep't v. Ellsworth
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 25 Marzo 2013
    ...granted,429 Md. 81, 54 A.3d 759 (2012) (quoting State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 469, 212 A.2d 101 (1965)); accord Jackson v. State, 207 Md.App. 336, 52 A.3d 980 (2012). Det. Ellsworth fails to make a persuasive argument that the information pertaining to Ofc. Redd's alleged misconduct would te......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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