Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1603, Sept. Term, 2006.,1603, Sept. Term, 2006. |
| Citation | 941 A.2d 498,178 Md. App. 123 |
| Parties | Steven JONES v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Amanda M. Downs (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.
Robert Taylor (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Panel DAVIS, JAMES R. EYLER and WOODWARD, JJ.
EYLER, JAMES R., J.
Steven Jones, appellant, was convicted by a jury, sitting in the Circuit Court for Washington County, of attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, possession of a handgun under the age of 21, and wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun on or about one's person. After merging offenses, the court imposed a sentence of 40 years for attempted first degree murder, and a consecutive ten year sentence for the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement because the State had failed to lay the proper foundation. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to call the witness for the sole purpose of impeaching him with a prior inconsistent statement. Perceiving no reversible error, we shall affirm.
On January 8, 2006, at approximately 5:00 p.m., David W. Webb, Jr. was standing outside 13 North Locust Street in. Hagerstown, with his fiancée, Brook Rutherford. He testified that, while he was standing outside, a boy rode by on what Mr. Webb believed to be his stolen Mongoose bicycle. Mr. Webb then proceeded to approach the boy and asked him, not in "a polite way," for the bike back. While Mr. Webb and the boy were conversing about the bike, Mr. Webb, out of the corner of his eye, saw someone approach him from across the street. The person shot Mr. Webb in the face.
After being shot, Mr. Webb ran down the street in the direction of his home. The assailant fired another shot at Mr. Webb as he ran, which missed. Mr. Webb looked back to see where the shooter was and noticed he was crossing the street and moving toward Ms. Rutherford. Mr. Webb then ran across the street, pushed Ms. Rutherford out of the way, told her to run inside the house, and call the police. As Ms. Rutherford was going inside, Mr. Webb saw the shooter approaching him again. Mr. Webb curled up into a ball, and the shooter shot him again in the head. After he was shot, Mr. Webb opened his eyes and saw the shooter run "up the street and around the corner on Washington Street." During his direct examination, Mr. Webb identified appellant as the shooter.
Officer Thomas Bartles, a Hagerstown City police officer, testified that he received a call at 5:19 p.m. advising that a shooting had occurred in the unit block of North Locust Street. Officer Bartles immediately responded and observed several individuals standing around a man, later identified as Mr. Webb, lying on the ground with blood coming from his head. Officer Bartles asked Mr. Webb if he could describe the assailant. Mr. Webb responded that "the shooter was a dark skinned black male."
Officer Baffles further testified that, on the day of the incident, uniformed patrol officers stopped two subjects in the first block of South Locust Street. Both subjects were taken to the precinct for one-on-one identification. Appellant, one of the subjects, was arrested and charged with the shooting.
The trial occurred on August 31, 2006. In addition to Mr. Webb and Officer Bartles, the State called eight witnesses. The relevant testimony is summarized below.
Alice Smith, a neighbor of Mr. Webb, testified that she was outside at the time of the shooting. She observed Mr. Webb cross the street to speak to a light skinned black male on a bike and then saw another man approach Mr. Webb and shoot him in the head. Ms. Smith identified" the weapon used as a silver handgun, about six inches long. She also testified that she heard the gun fire three times. When Ms. Smith was asked if she saw the man that shot Mr. Webb in the courtroom, she responded,
Thirteen-year-old Amanda Sweeney-Teal testified that she met a man who introduced himself as "Twenties," at the corner store on the day of the shooting.1 The State asked Ms. Sweeney-Teal whether "that person that you met that was known as Twenty, that introduced himself as Twenty, do you see him in the courtroom today?" She identified appellant as that man. She further testified that "Twenties" shot Mr. Webb and she saw three flashes from the gun.
Ms. Sweeney-Teal's friend, Patricia Weedon, testified that she was walking with Ms. Sweeney-Teal when a man, whom she later identified as appellant, approached them and introduced himself as "Twenty." She then observed Mr. Webb involved in an altercation with the boy on the bike and observed Twenty approach Mr. Webb and shoot him. She could not identify a weapon, however.
Brooke Rutherford, Mr. Webb's fiancée, testified that she was standing outside at the time of the altercation. Ms. Rutherford identified appellant as the man who shot Mr. Webb. Ms. Rutherford further testified that she did not see the gun.
The State also called Joshua Brown. Both of appellant's contentions revolve around the testimony of Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown testified that on January 8, 2006, at approximately 5:00 p.m., he was on Locust Street with a Mongoose bicycle with "somebody named Kevin." The State then asked Mr. Brown "[w]hat happened?" In response, Mr. Brown testified that "the boy named Kev shot [Mr. Webb]." He stated that he had a silver, short gun and that, after he saw Kevin pull the gun out and heard it go off, he ran. He stated that no other friends were on Locust Street at that time. The State then continued questioning as follows:
[State]: Are you familiar with an individual named Twenty?
[Witness]: No.
[State]: You don't know anyone named Twenty? Do any of your friends use that nickname?
[Witness]: Oh, I don't know.
[State]: Okay. Do you recall being at the Hagerstown Police Department? Do you remember being interviewed by....
[State]: Do you recall being interviewed by Sergeant Kifer and Sergeant Robinson from the Hagerstown Police Department? Do you recall that?
Court Reporter: We are not recording his answer.
[State]: Can you repeat your answer? Do you remember talking to Sergeants....
[Witness]: Yes, ma'am.
[State]: Yes. Okay. Do you recall them interviewing you regarding this incident?
[Witness]: Yes, ma'am.
[State]: Okay. Do you recall what you told them? Do you remember what you told Sergeant Kifer?
[Witness]: No.
[State]: You don't remember what you said to him?
[State]: Do you recall telling Sergeant Kifer....
[Witness]: No ma'am.
[State]: Can I finish my question? Do you recall telling Sergeant Kifer that Twenty was on Locust with you?
[Witness]: Locust?
[State]: Yes.
[Witness]: Ah, I don't know anybody named Twenty.
[State]: So you ... is it your testimony here today that when you were talking ... when you were interviewed by members of the Hagerstown Police Department you never said the name Twenty?
[Witness]: Yeah, I said the name Twenty.
[State]: You did? Who were you talking about?
[Witness]: The dude that was with us.
[State]: Now, there was somebody with you?
[Witness]: Yeah.
[State]: Who ... where was he?
[Witness]: Huh?
[State]: Who was
[Witness]: He was around the corner.
[State]: He stayed around the corner?
[Witness]: Yeah.
[State]: When you say around the corner....
[Witness]: Around the corner on Franklin.
[State]: So, Twenty never came on to Locust?
[Witness]: No.
[State]: But Kevin Harris.... Let me ask you this, do you recall two girls being across the street?
[Witness]: No, I don't.
[State]: Okay. Earlier in your testimony you talked about two females that were walking and talking.
[Witness]: But they wasn't with me though.
[State]: I'm sorry?
[Witness]: They was not with me.
[State]: Those two girls weren't with you?
[Witness]: No, they was not with me.
[State]: Okay. Who was with them?
[Witness]: Huh?
[State]: Was anyone with those two girls?
[Witness]: The boy named Kevin was with 'em.
[State]: Okay. How do you know Twenty?
[Witness]: Huh?
[State]: How do you know Twenty?
[Witness]: How do I know him? Through the boy named Key.
[State]: Okay. Do you consider Twenty your friend?
[Witness]: Oh, no.
[State]: He was not your friend?
[Witness]: It was just somebody I knew.
[State]: Thank you. Nothing further.
Following Mr. Brown's testimony, the State called Sergeant Paul Kifer, supervisor of the Criminal Investigation Unit, to the stand. The pertinent part of his testimony follows:
[State]: Okay. Sergeant, I'm going to direct your attention to, ah, an incident that occurred on North Locust Street on January eight, 2006, a shooting. Are you familiar with that investigation?
[Witness]: Yes, I am.
[State]: Okay. Ah, are you familiar with an individual named J.D. Brown or Joshua Brown?
[Witness]: Yes, I am.
[State]: How are you familiar with him? [Witness]: We had gotten information as part of the investigation that there was someone that could possibly be....
[Witness]: Ah, someone possibly named JB or used the name JB....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colkley v. State
...that judges properly perform their duties." Darling v. State , 232 Md. App. 430, 158 A.3d 1065 (quoting Jones v. State , 178 Md. App. 123, 144, 941 A.2d 498 (2008) ). For that reason, "[t]he fact that the record does not reflect whether a trial court conducted [a Rule 5-404 ] balancing test......
-
Darling v. State
...record does not reflect whether a trial court conducted the balancing test does not mean the court did not do so." Jones v. State , 178 Md.App. 123, 144, 941 A.2d 498 (2008). This is because "[t]here is a strong presumption that judges properly perform their duties." Id. (quotation marks an......
-
Darling v. State
...the record does not reflect whether a trial court conducted the balancing test does not mean the court did not do so." Jones v. State, 178 Md. App. 123, 144 (2008). This is because "[t]here is a strong presumption that judges properly perform their duties." Id. (quotation marks and citation......
-
Garris v. State
...a witness "as a subterfuge" for the sole purpose of impeaching the witness with otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence. Jones v. State, 178 Md. App. 123, 138-39 (2008). But that constraint applies only when the evidence at issue would come in solely for impeachment purposes, not when it is......