Jones v. State
| Citation | 94 A.3d 813,217 Md.App. 676 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1106,Sept. Term, 2013.,1106 |
| Parties | Antomar JONES v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David P. Kennedy (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellant.
Todd W. Hesel (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Panel: WOODWARD, NAZARIAN, REED, JJ.
A spectator at appellant Antomar Jones's trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City could be forgiven for wondering whether the prosecution and defense were describing the same series of events. The two stories shared common elements, not least the core fact that Anthony Taylor, the main prosecution witness, was shot and Corey Alexander killed on the night of February 1, 2012. But although there was, as we find below, sufficient evidence to support the jury's eventual decision to convict Mr. Jones on a variety of charges, no physical evidence connected Mr. Jones to the shooting, and the case turned heavily on the relative credibility of Mr. Jones versus Mr. Taylor. For that reason, we hold that the prosecutor's reliance during closing argument on a fact not in evidence strayed beyond the bounds of fair advocacy and that the error was not harmless. We reverse Mr. Jones's convictions, remand for further proceedings, and address one other legal question that could well re-emerge on remand.
Because our analysis relates more to witness credibility than to the jury's resolution of fact disputes, we begin by recounting the contrasting versions of events that witnesses offered at trial.
Mr. Taylor testified that he and Mr. Alexander were best friends and roommates before the shooting. He knew Mr. Jones, whose friend had been mentored by Mr. Alexander through a program called Life Renewal Services, and testified that Mr. Alexander had begun mentoring Mr. Jones as well.
At about 8:45 p.m. on February 1, 2012, Mr. Alexander told Mr. Taylor that he was driving to Mr. Jones's residence in BaltimoreCity to give him a ride, and Mr. Taylor decided to join him. When they arrived, Mr. Jones entered the back seat, and they drove toward Caton Avenue, where they had planned to drop Mr. Jones off. However, when Mr. Alexander reached back to shake Mr. Jones's hand, Mr. Jones pulled out a large caliber automatic gun and said, “you all know what time it is” and that he “want[ed] everything out of [their] pocket[s].” Mr. Taylor had about sixteen dollars and Mr. Alexander had “a couple” of dollars.1 They each threw their money and a phone into the back seat.2 Mr. Jones then demanded they drive to Mr. Alexander's house, but when they arrived, Mr. Taylor told Mr. Jones that the neighbors had surveillance cameras, so Mr. Jones told him to “pull off,” and they drove instead to a nearby alley. Upon arriving, Mr. Taylor attempted to exit the car, and Mr. Jones shot him in the face; he was able to run to Good Samaritan Hospital, and he said that he thought he heard another gunshot as he ran. While Mr. Taylor was being treated, a Baltimore City police officer asked him to identify the shooter, but he responded “that it was an unknown assailant” and that he “didn't know.”
Good Samaritan transferred Mr. Taylor to University of Maryland Shock Trauma, and while there, he was interviewed by Baltimore City Police officers. During that interview, he explained that Mr. Jones had shot him, and he identified Mr. Jones from a photo array. He remained in Shock Trauma for two weeks.
Mr. Jones testified that he knew Mr. Alexander through his brother's Life Renewal Services mentor, and had met Mr. Taylor through Mr. Alexander. 3 He also said that he began purchasing marijuana from them in October or November 2011.
On January 31, 2012, Mr. Jones spoke with Mr. Alexander by phone at 9:37 p.m., then again on February 1 at around 12:30 p.m. During the February 1 conversation, Mr. Alexander informed Mr. Jones that he would be acquiring marijuana later that day and asked Mr. Jones to check back with him later. Mr. Jones called Mr. Alexander at 9:19 p.m., and Mr. Alexander told him he would come to his house with the marijuana. They spoke again at 9:25 p.m. and at 9:34 p.m. After receiving the 9:34 p.m. call from Mr. Alexander, Mr. Jones left the house to meet Mr. Alexander outside. He described a very different interaction with Messrs. Alexander and Taylor:
[MR. JONES]: Okay. I got in the car, first [Mr. Alexander] turned around and said hey, what's up, shook my hand. Then I talked to [Mr. Taylor], he turned around and said hey, what's up, shook my hand.
At that moment I noticed my phone had vibrated, so I looked down and saw that it was my girlfriend, when I go to answer it, the phone cut off. So, I said can I use my car charger? 4 Plugged my phone up, we began talking, asked me what I was doing all day, I said I was in the house with my girlfriend all day.
Then after that, purchased the marijuana,5 got out of the car, went back in the house.
According to Mr. Jones, he had no additional communications or interactions with Messrs. Alexander and Taylor that night.
The State questioned Mr. Jones later on about the make and model phone he had that night, an exchange that will prove important later:
On February 1, 2012, Detective Shawn Reitchenberg of the Baltimore Police Department'sHomicide Unit was assigned to investigate the homicide of Mr. Alexander and shooting of Mr. Taylor. According to Detective Reitchenberg, officers arrived on the scene that night at around 11:00 p.m., and he arrived at 2:00 a.m. When he examined Mr. Alexander's vehicle, he saw a large amount of blood in the front seat and found two cell phones, some money, a glass bottle, a banana, and shell casings in the back seat. Detective Reitchenberg then described what happened next:
We observed the blood from the driver's side of the vehicle. You could clearly see a blood trail that went out of the driver's side [of the] vehicle] and then up Nasco Place toward Good Samaritan Hospital.... There were several cars that had blood smear marks on them and the blood trail continued on the street.
The entire scene was processed, photographed and that vehicle was towed to the crime lab bay at the Headquarters Unit to be processed.
* * *
By the time we were done, or I was done at the crime scene with the crime lab and other detectives, I responded to Good Samaritan Hospital in an attempt to not only see but speak with the non-fatal victim. But I was advised that he had already been transported to Shock Trauma based upon the seriousness of his condition.
Detective Reitchenberg visited Mr. Taylor at Shock Trauma on February 2, 2012. Mr. Taylor provided the detective with the first name of an individual—Antomar—and a description. The detective returned to his office, researched the name Antomar, and “came up with an individual with the name Antomar who fit the physical description” provided by Mr. Taylor. He then put Mr. Jones's picture in a photo array and returned to Shock Trauma to show the array to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor identified Mr. Jones in less than a minute.
Soon after, Detective Reitchenberg obtained a warrant for Mr. Jones's arrest, and he was arrested on February 3 at about 3:30 a.m. The police executed a search of Mr. Jones's home, but found nothing of evidentiary value. The detective then spoke with Mr. Jones at 5:50 a.m., and Mr. Jones agreed to make a recorded statement that ultimately was played for the jury. The statement mirrored the testimony that he provided at trial.
The police were unable to find any physical evidence—“no bloody clothes, no gun, no money, or anything else”—tying Mr. Jones to the crime.6
Mr. Jones was tried for the murder of Mr. Alexander and the attempted murder of Mr. Taylor, among other crimes, during a three-day trial held between May 13 and 16, 2013. After the court heard testimony from nine witnesses, including the conflicting reports provided by Messrs. Taylor and Jones, the jury found Mr. Jones guilty of felony murder of Mr. Alexander; attempted first-degree murder of Mr. Taylor; robbery with a dangerous weapon; use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence; possession of a regulated firearm by a person under the age of twenty-one; and wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle. The court sentenced him to life in prison for the felony murder conviction, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger
... ... at 544, 62 A.3d at 128. In the instant appeal, 1 however, the State 2 asks us to consider sex offenders' “federal obligations” and whether a circuit court has the authority to direct the State to remove sex ... See Md. Rule 8–303(f) (disposition of petition for certiorari); Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408, 419, 745 A.2d 396, 402 (2000) ( “The certiorari process ... allows this Court to select and review cases that we deem to be ... ...
-
Rosales v. State
...; Ricketts v. State , 291 Md. 701, 436 A.2d 906 (1981) (holding indecent exposure was not relevant to credibility); Jones v. State , 217 Md. App. 676, 94 A.3d 813 (2014) (holding conviction for attempted second-degree murder is a non-impeachable offense). Convictions for acts of violence ar......
-
Gibson v. State
...errors and jurors are presumed to follow the instructions provided bythe trial judge. Carter, 366 Md. at 592. Accord Jones v. State, 217 Md. App. 676, 697-98 (2014) (quoting Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145, 160 (2005)) ("'Maryland courts long have subscribed to the presumption that juries are a......
-
Reyes-Mendoza v. State
...are afforded great leeway in presenting closing arguments to the jury." Degren v. State, 352 Md. 400, 429 (1999). Accord Jones v. State, 217 Md. App. 676, 691-92, cert. denied, 440 Md. 227 (2014). As the Court of Appeals has explained:While arguments of counsel are required to be confined t......