Manchame-Guerra v. State

• Decision Date: 26 December 2019
• Docket Number: No. 2444,2444
• Parties: RUDY ISMAEL MANCHAME-GUERRA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

RUDY ISMAEL MANCHAME-GUERRA v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2444

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

December 26, 2019

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CT140125X

UNREPORTED

Fader, C.J., Arthur, Bair, Gary E. (Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Fader, C.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.

In 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed Rudy Ismael Manchame-Guerra's convictions for second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and remanded for a new trial. Manchame-Guerra v. State, 457 Md. 300, 322 (2018). A new jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County found him guilty of the same offenses. Mr. Manchame-Guerra now asserts that the circuit court erred during the retrial by (1) declining to instruct the jury on the offense of voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense, (2) allowing a detective to testify regarding his "disbelief" in Mr. Manchame-Guerra's statements, and (3) denying Mr. Manchame-Guerra's motion to suppress statements made during a police interview. We find no error and will affirm.

BACKGROUND

A more fulsome recitation of the underlying factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court of Appeals's 2018 opinion. Manchame-Guerra, 457 Md. at 303-07. We limit our discussion here to the portions of the record relevant to the issues before us.

The charges at issue arose from an incident that occurred outside of an informal restaurant, during which Mr. Manchame-Guerra shot the victim, Saul Felipe-Augustine, in the presence of his friend, Edi Felipe.¹ At trial, Mr. Felipe testified that he witnessed Mr. Manchame-Guerra point a gun at close range at the victim's face and then shoot him once in the head. The State charged Mr. Manchame-Guerra with first degree murder, second degree murder, and use of a firearm in commission of a crime of violence.

The 2015 Motion to Suppress

Mr. Manchame-Guerra's first trial took place in April 2015 (the "2015 Trial"). Before trial, Mr. Manchame-Guerra moved to suppress statements he had made to Detective Marcos Rodriguez during an interview that took place when he was first apprehended. After a hearing, the court concluded that Mr. Manchame-Guerra had voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before the interview and so denied the motion to suppress.

The 2015 Trial Verdict

At the close of evidence in the 2015 Trial, the court instructed the jury on, among other things, (1) first degree murder, (2) second degree murder, (3) voluntary manslaughter, (4) use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, (5) complete self-defense, and (6) imperfect self-defense. The verdict sheet included the following questions:

VERDICT SHEET

1. (a) First Degree Murder (Saul Felipe-Augustine)

__________Not Guilty __________Guilty

If Guilty, skip question 1(b) and 1(c) and answer question number 2. If Not Guilty, answer question 1(b).

(b) Second Degree Murder

__________Not Guilty __________Guilty

If Guilty, skip question 1(c) and answer question number 2. If Not Guilty, answer question 1(c).

(c) Voluntary Manslaughter

__________Not Guilty __________Guilty

If you entered Not Guilty to questions 1(a) (b) and (c), enter Not Guilty to question number 2.

Otherwise answer question number 2.

2. Use of a handgun in the commission of a Felony or Crime of Violence.

__________Not Guilty __________Guilty

The jury returned the form with an X marked next to "Not Guilty" for first degree murder, an X marked next to "Guilty" for second degree murder, and an X marked next to "Guilty" for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. Ignoring the instruction to skip question 1(c) if it found Mr. Manchame-Guerra guilty in 1(b), the jury also placed an X next to "Not Guilty" for Voluntary Manslaughter. The court, however, only read the verdicts on questions 1(a), 1(b), and 2, and the jury was hearkened and polled on only those charges.

The First Appeal

On appeal to this Court, Mr. Manchame-Guerra challenged the trial court's (1) denial of his motion to suppress, and (2) refusal to permit him to impeach Mr. Felipe with questions about criminal charges that were then pending against Mr. Felipe. In an unreported opinion, a panel of this Court affirmed both rulings. See Manchame-Guerra v. State, No. 899, Sept. Term 2015, 2017 WL 193159, at *1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 18, 2017). With regard to the first issue, the panel found "the record [] clear that" Mr. Manchame-Guerra "underst[ood] that he was waiving certain rights," that his signed advice of rights form was "an effective waiver of [his] Miranda rights," and that his answers were given voluntarily. Id. at *3. With regard to impeachment, the panel held that Mr. Manchame-Guerra had "not provide[d] a sufficient factual basis" to establish that Mr. Felipe "might have expected a benefit" from the State in exchange for his testimony and, therefore, that the court had not erred in refusing to permit questions about the charges pending against him. Id. at *6.

Mr. Manchame-Guerra petitioned for certiorari only on the impeachment issue, and the Court of Appeals granted that petition. Manchame-Guerra, 457 Md. at 308 n.4. The Court ultimately agreed with Mr. Manchame-Guerra that the trial court committed reversible error in precluding him from asking his impeachment questions of Mr. Felipe and instructed this Court to vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial. Id. at 322.

The 2018 Trial

The State retried Mr. Manchame-Guerra in September 2018. The parties did not relitigate the motion to suppress, but the court granted Mr. Manchame-Guerra "a continuing objection to the use of [his] statement at trial based on all of the issues that were raised during the motion to suppress . . . at the first trial." The court "rule[d] that any issues preserved [during the 2015 Trial] are preserved and need not be raised again . . . in the course of trial."

At trial, Det. Rodriguez testified about his interview of Mr. Manchame-Guerra. He testified that at "different times through[out] the interview," Mr. Manchame-Guerra said that: (1) the victim "pushed him outside" the restaurant; (2) the victim "tried to hit him with a fire extinguisher"; (3) the victim drew the gun; (4) at some point, the gun fell on the stairs; and (5) in a struggle over the gun, "[Mr. Manchame-Guerra] took the gun from the victim and [] shot the victim in the forehead." The following exchange is particularly relevant to Mr. Manchame-Guerra's claims on appeal:

[STATE]: Did there come a time that you confronted [Mr. Manchame-Guerra] with his variety of reasons he gave you for the shooting and asked him what really happened?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[DET. RODRIGUEZ]: Yes, I did.

[STATE]: And do you recall what his response was when you confronted him with the various versions he had given you?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[DET. RODRIGUEZ]: I don't remember his exact response. But I do remember that he said that he lost control.

Later in his testimony, Det. Rodriguez testified that "one of the versions" of events that Mr. Manchame-Guerra provided involved the victim drawing the gun during the altercation. The State subsequently asked Det. Rodriguez, "Approximately how many versions of events leading up to the defendant shooting the victim did he give you?" He responded, "About three."

The Jury Instructions at the 2018 Trial

In proposed jury instructions, Mr. Manchame-Guerra requested, among other instructions, that the court propound the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction for "Voluntary Manslaughter (Perfect/Imperfect Self-Defense)." See MPJI-Cr 4:17.2C. At the close of evidence, Mr. Manchame-Guerra argued that he had presented sufficient evidence to establish a theory that, based on his statements to police, he had "acted in self-defense." That led to the following dialogue:

THE COURT: I do have a question however about self-defense. This is a retrial of a trial before [a different judge]. Self-defense, an imperfect self-defense was presented to that jury and they found the defendant not guilty of voluntary manslaughter on the basis of imperfect self-defense, right?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.

THE COURT: So how can I present that to the jury?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Obviously, our position is that the facts are essentially the same in both of the trials. But they aren't a hundred percent the same. And this jury, I think, heard somewhat more with regard to - the statement -THE COURT: But I guess my question is [that] regardless of what the evidence is in this trial as opposed to the other trial, [] will double jeopardy prevent my presenting that [voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense instruction] to the jury again.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand the Court's concern, Your Honor. I feel as though all I can do is submit on that issue. You've heard my arguments.

. . .

THE COURT: For the reasons we discussed, I am not going to give the voluntary - the voluntary manslaughter, perfect and imperfect self-defense instructions.

. . .

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . [L]et me just renew my objection to the Court's ruling with regard to the self-defense instruction. Obviously, it is of momentous importance to my client. And although I recognize the Court's basis for making the ruling, I want to again emphasize that I think that the testimony came out somewhat differently in this case. That there was more that the jury could consider based on the testimony at this trial that -

THE COURT: So what are you saying, you want to waive any double jeopardy right, any right to be free from double jeopardy and present voluntary manslaughter to the jury?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No. I don't want to waive any of my client's rights, particularly with regard to double jeopardy.

THE COURT: I didn't

...