Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 325,325 |
| Parties | HARRY SOLOMON JONES v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Wicomico County
Case No. K150454
UNREPORTED
Graeff, Kehoe, Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
On February 10, 2016, a jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County convicted Harry Solomon Jones, appellant, of two counts of first degree sex offense, two counts of second degree sex offense, false imprisonment, first degree assault, second degree assault, unnatural and perverted practice, reckless endangerment, and wearing or carrying a dangerous weapon with intent to injure. On April 7, 2016, the court sentenced appellant to 35 years on one conviction for first degree sex offense, 25 years, consecutive, on the other conviction for first degree sex offense, and 5 years, concurrent, for the false imprisonment conviction. All other counts merged for sentencing purposes.
On appeal, appellant presents the following two questions for this Court's review:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
The victim, M.S., testified that, for a three-day period in June 2015, appellant imprisoned her in his Salisbury home and subjected her to repeated physical and sexual assaults.1 She testified that, on June 13, 2015, she talked to appellant on the phone. He was upset about his breakup with the victim's daughter, approximately two months earlier, and "he needed a shoulder to cry on." The victim agreed to go to appellant's house and have a "friendly talk."
Appellant picked up the victim at approximately 10:00 p.m. and drove her to his house. As soon as the victim stepped into appellant's house, he struck her in the head with a crowbar, and she lost consciousness.
When the victim regained consciousness, she found herself on appellant's couch, bound with zip ties around her hands and ankles. The zip ties were tight enough that they indented into her skin and caused her hands to swell. The bindings also caused blisters from the rubbing. Appellant then demanded that the victim perform oral sex on him. He dropped his pants and pushed the victim's head toward his penis. She protested, but he stated that he would hurt her if she did not do what he asked. Appellant then struck the victim in the face "really hard" with his hand, which caused her ears to start ringing. The victim was scared and felt that she "had no choice" but to comply. Appellant "inserted his penis into [the victim's] mouth," and "within a couple of minutes, he ejaculated" onto her face, neck, and tank top. Appellant then sat down in a chair and proceeded to watch television as if nothing had happened.
Several hours later, appellant asked the victim to get into bed with him. The victim refused, so appellant gave her pillows and a blanket, and she spent the night on the couch. Appellant did not unbind her.
The next morning, appellant left the house for approximately one hour. He made the victim lie in the bathtub, placed a sock in her mouth, and covered her mouth with duct tape.
Approximately 24 hours after the ordeal began, appellant removed the victim from the bathtub and placed her in a chair. She asked him if he would let her go, and he responded that he would let her go when she gave him information about her daughter. He wanted to know where her daughter lived, what kind of car her daughter's boyfriend drove, and other information. Appellant then forced the victim to perform oral sex on him again.
The victim testified that appellant repeated this routine several times, moving her between the bathtub and the chair or couch, all while demanding information about her daughter. He periodically adjusted her bindings, using various bits of rope, wire, and "hangers," in addition to the zip ties, to ensure that she would not escape. Appellant put her in the bathtub approximately eight or nine times over the course of her captivity, and she was forced to perform oral sex on appellant six or seven times. At one point, appellant threatened to tie her to a tree behind his house and leave her in the heat "where nobody [would] be able to find [her], ever."
This continued until the morning of June 16, when the victim escaped. That day, appellant stated that he was going to the grocery store. He told her that she had to get back into the bathtub, but when he returned, they could "work out a deal," and he would pay her $250 per week if she would not report him to the police. The victim agreed so he would let her go. Appellant then put the victim back into the bathtub, but this time, he cut off some of the bindings around her legs. Appellant did not remove the bindings around her ankles, however, and he also left her arms tied to her neck.
After appellant left the house, the victim managed to get herself out of the bathtub. She found a pair of wire cutters, used them to cut off some of her bindings, and then ran out the front door.
The victim subsequently encountered a passing motorist and her passenger, who stopped to aid her. They both testified at trial that they observed the victim standing near the road waving her arms. She was disheveled, distraught, and had ropes and zip ties around her neck, wrists, and ankles. They called 911 and drove the victim to another location.
Detective William Oakley, a member of the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office, was dispatched to their location. The victim was extremely distraught, disheveled, and crying hysterically. She had zip ties around her neck and on her wrists, and she was holding a rope.
The victim testified that she told Detective Oakley that she had "been held hostage for four days with nothing to eat," and she had been raped, sodomized, and "made to do oral sex." She told the detective who did these things and where that person lived.
When paramedics arrived, they also observed that the victim had ties around her neck and wrists. One paramedic testified that the victim had "what appeared to be . . . burn marks, like blistering" on her wrists and ankles. Although some of the zip ties on the victim's body were loose, the paramedic had to cut off one of the zip ties because "her hand was so swollen around it, and it was so tight."
After the victim was transported to the hospital by ambulance, Detective Oakley and another officer drove to appellant's house. Detective Oakley approached appellant and asked his name. When appellant identified himself, the officers placed him in handcuffs and put him in a chair that was outside. Detective Oakley then entered appellant's residence "to make sure no one else [was] in there." During this protective sweep, Detective Oakley noted that there was a blanket in the bathtub and zip ties in other places in the house.
A qualified forensic nurse examiner performed a sexual assault examination on the victim while she was at the hospital. The nurse observed bruising on the victim's thigh, under her breasts, and on her chest. She also observed abrasions and blisters on her wrists, and a foreign substance on her face that resembled adhesive tape residue. During the examination, the victim "complained of some tenderness to the back of her neck, where her hairline meets her neck," but the hospital staff "did not find any bruising or swelling there." The nurse explained that they do not always find bruising or swelling after an injury. The hospital performed a CT scan of the victim's head; the results were negative as to any injury or abnormality.
On June 17, 2015, the police executed a search warrant on appellant's residence. They discovered, among other things, zip ties, some of which were found in the bathtub, rope, metal "clothes hangers that were fashioned into ties," a piece of duct tape attached to a sock, and a crowbar, which was found hidden under a mattress.
The evidence collected from appellant's home and the sexual assault examination was submitted to the Maryland State Police forensic laboratory. A forensic scientist processed swabs of the victim's neck and tank top, and she found sperm and DNA matching appellant's profile.
The scientist also tested swabs from the sock, which tested positive for amylase, a component of saliva, and matched the victim's profile. The scientist agreed that the presence of amylase would be consistent with "a sock being put in somebody's mouth."
Appellant testified at trial, providing a different version of events. He testified that, on June 13, 2015, the victim texted him, asking if he would "bring her some pills." At approximately 9:30 p.m., appellant went to pick up the victim from her mother's house. When he arrived, appellant waited as the victim went next door to her cousin's house to purchase some cocaine. After she "did her deal," she got into appellant's car, and they drove to several stores to buy food and cigarettes.
Appellant and the victim arrived at appellant's house at approximately 10:45 p.m. Appellant testified that he held the door for the victim, and when they were inside, he got her a plate and a razor blade to prepare some cocaine. He cut a straw for her, and she snorted some cocaine. Appellant did not partake because he regularly took prescription pain medication, and "they [would] urine test [him]."
Appellant and the victim then decided to play cards. While they were playing, she asked him if he "still had the handcuffs," which he usually kept in the same drawer as the cards. Appellant replied that the victim's daughter made him throw them away. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial