Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. 1529,1529
• Citation: Jackson v. State, 752 A.2d 1227, 132 Md. App. 467 (Md. App. 2000)
• Parties: Steven Blair JACKSON v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

752 A.2d 1227

132 Md. App. 467

Steven Blair JACKSON v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 1529, Sept. Term, 1999.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 6, 2000.

John M. Hassett, Baltimore, for appellant.

Shannon E. Avery, Assistant Attorney General(J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore and Frank Weathersbee, State's Attorney for Anne Arundel County, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before WENNER, DAVIS and KENNEY, JJ.

KENNEY, Judge.

PROCEEDINGS

Appellant, Steven Blair Jackson, was charged with two counts of second degree rape, two counts of second degree assault, and other lesser included offenses.A suppression hearing was held on January 25, 1999, to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denied this motion.A motion for reconsideration was also denied.Appellant was convicted at a jury trial of two counts of second degree rape and two counts of second degree assault.He was sentenced to two twenty-year terms of imprisonment, to be served consecutively.Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, presenting the following questions, which we have reworded as follows:

I.Did the trial court err in declining to suppress evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant?

II.Did the trial court err in prohibiting expert testimony concerning the effect of bleach on the victim's vaginal area?

III.Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts and refusing to give the jury a precautionary instruction?

FACTS

In June 1998, the victim, a 19 year old college freshman, was leaving a local Baltimore bar when she met appellant riding a horse outside of the bar.She approached appellant, expressing an interest in horses.The two exchanged telephone numbers and discussed the possibility of horseback riding together sometime in the future.

On June 24, 1998, the two spoke on the telephone about arranging a time to go horseback riding.She met appellant at Marley Station Mall and followed him in her car to the National Fitness gym, which he operated.Inside the gym, she changed into riding clothes.

She and appellant left the gym in his car and drove to appellant's stables.They then saddled two horses and went riding on a wooded trail.After approximately a twenty minute ride, it was getting dark and the two went into a small bar for a few drinks.She and appellant remained at the bar drinking until approximately 11:00 p.m.During this time, she consumed three beers, a lemon drop shooter, and tasted another shooter.She took a fourth beer with her when the two left the bar.While at the bar, she left twice to go to the restroom, leaving appellant alone with the bartender.During their conversations at the bar, she informed appellant that she was studying criminal justice.He responded that "he had been arrested before."

The victim testified that the next thing she remembered after she left the bar was that she and appellant were back at the stables.She remembered that she was nude and "he was having sex with me."She attempted to stand up, but stumbled and fell.She then began to vomit.She recalled him picking her up and putting her in a car.As they were riding in appellant's car, she tried to climb out the window, still nude, and he pulled her back in the car.

She next remembered being back at the gym, waking up in a bed, and realizing that appellant again was having sex with her.The bed was in a mirrored room that was part of the gym that she had not seen before.At some point during the night, appellant stated, "have you figured out what I have been arrested for?"Appellant helped her to her car, and she drove to her home in Ellicott City.She arrived at her home around 6:00 a.m.Once at home, she felt "awful," but showered and went to work.While showering, she noticed several bruises on her body.

The following day, June 25, she told her mothershe thought she had been raped.Her mother took her to the Howard County Hospital, where the victim recounted her story to several Howard County police officers.While at the hospital, she saw Dr. Michael Perline.Dr. Perline noted that she was tearful and frustrated, but did not observe any injuries on her.A rape examination was not conducted because the incident did not occur in Howard County, and it was the hospital's policy to refer people to the county in which the incident occurred.

On June 27, 1998, the victim went to the Anne Arundel County authorities to report her story.She testified that after returning home she felt better.She stated that, "I was cleaning myself and ... cleaning down there, and I felt something hard."She removed the object, which she determined to be a plastic cap.She gave the cap to the police.

Detective Kathy Pleasant and Detective Katherine Goodwin, Anne Arundel County police officers assigned to the Sex Offense Unit, testified at the suppression hearing that the victim had informed them that she was raped by appellant in a back room at National Fitness.The police drove her to the Sun Valley Shopping Center, where she identified the National Fitness gym as the location where the last incident occurred.

On July 2, 1998, police confirmed that the address of National Fitness was 7963 Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard.They checked the county dispatch system, the phone book, and land records.There was no distinction on the land records of a separate address of 7959A Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard.They also consulted a police officer who had, six years earlier, worked out at the gym, and confirmed the address.They also spoke with an officer's wife who formerly taught aerobics at the gym and were informed that the aerobics room was no longer used for aerobics, but was used for storage.Detective Pleasant testified that after discussions with the victim and the other individuals, she concluded that appellant might be living or sleeping at National Fitness.A warrant was issued to search the location of 7963 Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard and seize evidence including: bed sheets or bedding, sex toys, occupancy documents, and pill bottles.

Detective Pleasant, along with other officers, went to National Fitness to execute the warrant.They went directly to the front desk and asked to speak with appellant.While Detective Pleasant was speaking with appellant, the other officers were securing the premises.Detective Goodwin approached appellant, informing him that doors in the back of the gym were locked.Appellant stated that the area was storage and gave Detective Pleasant the keys to the doors.The receptionist informed the officers that the doors in the back were locked and that "there was a bunch of stuff on the other side" and that "it would be easier to go around."The officers then went out the front door and, using the keys, entered a door marked 7959A, which they were told was the storage area.Detective Pleasant had a photograph taken the day of the search that indicated the separate address, but testified that at the time of the search she did not notice a separate address.

The room appeared to be an aerobics room with walled mirrors and "cushy" flooring, now used to store old exercise equipment, boxes, and promotional materials.Inside the room, they discovered what appeared to be appellant's bedroom area.From the area, they recovered an empty pill bottle, a bleach bottle, sex toys, photographs, and other documents, which were later entered as evidence against appellant.

The theory of the prosecution's case was that appellant drugged the victim's drinks and raped her.Appellant, on the other hand, contended that the parties engaged in consensual sex.

Appellant testified at the suppression hearing concerning the aerobics room.He stated that interior doors no longer connected the gym to the aerobics/storage area.Although the area had previously been part of the gym, fire codes required a firewall to be built between the two areas and the only access was through the front.He slept in the area, but the phone line was registered to the National Fitness 7963 address, and his mail was delivered to the National Fitness 7963 address.

The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress evidence seized from this aerobics/storage area.The trial court stated:

Now in this case, it is all the same, really, because—just because it has another number up there, it is part of the same area.He is sleeping there.He shows his MVA, the records, that he even lists his license at the number that was—that they used for the warrant.The keys, if they have the keys, they could go right into it.Under all the circumstances, the court is going to deny your motion to suppress.

DISCUSSION

I.Suppression Hearing

Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.He argues that, although the warrant was valid, its execution was improper.He asserts that the bedroom area, because it had a designated street number, was a separate address, and therefore the police officers went outside the scope of the warrant in searching the separate locked area.He argues that, upon realizing the warrant was not broad enough, the police officers took it upon themselves "to extend the authorization [of the warrant] to a location next door."We disagree.

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews only the record of the suppression hearing, reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party.Williams v. State,127 Md.App. 208, 732 A.2d 376(1999).We accept the factual findings of the trial court, unless clearly erroneous, but make our own independent constitutional appraisal of legal conclusions.Ferris v. State,355 Md. 356, 735 A.2d 491(1999).

In Ferguson and Crenshaw v. State,236 Md. 148, 202 A.2d 758(1964), the Court of Appeals was confronted with a similar situation of a business with multiple buildings.The police had a warrant to search...