Marquardt v. State
| Decision Date | 08 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 355,355 |
| Citation | 882 A.2d 900,164 Md. App. 95 |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
| Parties | Joseph William MARQUARDT, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
Brian L. Zavin (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellant.
Diane E. Keller (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.
Panel: SALMON, KENNEY and DEBORAH S. EYLER, JJ.
A jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Talbot County convicted Joseph William Marquardt, Jr., appellant, of two counts of second degree assault, two counts of fourth degree burglary, three counts of malicious destruction of property, and one count of false imprisonment. Appellant was sentenced to a total of twenty-three years and four months' incarceration and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $490.75. He presents four questions on appeal, which we have slightly rephrased as follows:
We agree that, under the facts of this case, separate sentences for malicious destruction of property and fourth degree burglary should not have been imposed. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
Appellant met his wife, Catherine Burns, about three years prior to the night of March 16, 2003. When they met, they both abused alcohol and drugs. Appellant entered a treatment program in September 2002, and testified that he had not used drugs since that time. Appellant also attempted unsuccessfully to obtain help for Burns, calling her parole officer, his parole officer, his rehabilitation counselor, the Family Assistance Network, Social Services, Memorial Hospital at Easton, the State's Attorney's Office, and Burns' parents. He asked clerks at the District Court of Maryland for Talbot County and the Circuit Court for Talbot County about an emergency petition, but was told such an order could not be issued unless Burns had been suicidal in the last 48 hours. Appellant was told to stay away from Burns and to "worry about [his] own self."
In the weeks leading up to March 16, 2003, appellant decided to stop calling Burns and would not take phone calls from her. On March 12, 2003, Burns left a message on appellant's cell phone saying she was at the hospital. Appellant originally He went to the hospital and learned that Burns was pregnant. Appellant was initially unhappy about the pregnancy because he thought Burns was a "crack addict." He had a prior experience with a girlfriend's grandson who was a "crack baby" who was "almost eight years old and never walked, talked . . . [and was] fed through a tube in his stomach." But, appellant reconciled with Burns, and the two made plans to celebrate the pregnancy on March 14, 2003. When appellant returned from work that night, Burns was missing and would not return his phone calls. He searched for two days, and on March 16, 2003, he called a number that Burns had stored in his cell phone for the residence of Robert Lambert. When the man who answered denied knowing Burns, appellant told him:
Appellant offered $100 to anyone who could provide him with the location of his wife. Shortly thereafter, he was told he could find Burns at an apartment building on Bay Street in Easton, Maryland. At around 9:30 p.m. on the night of March 16, 2003, appellant broke the glass of the front door at 17 Bay Street, put his hand inside the house, and tried unsuccessfully to unlock the door. Appellant
William Lacates, who lived at that address, asked appellant who he was and what he was doing. Appellant told Lacates he was looking for Burns. Lacates replied that no one by that name lived there. Lacates' mother, Robin Patrick, also told appellant that Burns had never been at their residence. Appellant told them that Burns was pregnant with his child, smoking crack cocaine, and that he "wanted to put her into rehab." After 10 or 15 minutes, appellant realized he was at the wrong address, apologized, and offered to pay for the damage to the door. He also requested that Lacates and Patrick not call the police. Appellant's demeanor was described as "[a]ggressive, angry perhaps," but he never threatened to injure anyone in the house.
Appellant used a baseball bat to break through the door and saw Burns sitting on the couch with what he believed to be a crack pipe in her hand.1 As appellant was reaching through the door, Lambert "jumped up off the other end of the couch" and started running toward him. Appellant testified that he saw something in Lambert's hand and "wasn't going to take a chance," so he hit him once in the head with the baseball bat.
Lambert testified that the last thing he could remember from the night of March 16, 2003, was fixing food in the kitchen. His next memory was waking up at the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center with "total loss of hearing in [his] left ear."2 During trial, Lambert testified that he was still deaf in his left ear, and he was suffering from depression.
Lambert recalled a telephone call from appellant a few days earlier during which appellant had threatened, "if I come over and find Cathy in your apartment I will kill you," but he had never met appellant before. Lambert was asked at trial whether he had a knife in his hand when he was preparing food in the kitchen, and he replied that he "may have had a butter knife with [him] at the time."
Appellant "slapped her" on "the upper body, the upper torso [area]."3 Eventually, near Route 50 and Chapel Road, Burns knocked the truck out of gear, and when appellant tried to grab the gearshift, Burns reached over and shut the ignition off. While appellant was trying to restart the truck, Burns jumped out. She ran toward the median, and appellant drove away.
At approximately 10:06 p.m., Officer James Cathcart was driving down Chapel Road toward Route 50 in a marked patrol vehicle when a motorist flagged him down.4 As a result of information he received from the motorist, Officer Cathcart drove west on Route 50. He saw a man get into a small white truck on the shoulder of eastbound Route 50 and drive away. When Officer Cathcart stopped his vehicle, he heard a woman's voice calling for help. He found Burns lying on a grassy portion of the median. Burns was without clothes from the waist up and had "what seemed to be blood on her face." She was "emotionally upset," crying to "the point where she was hysterical," and would not talk to Officer Cathcart. He radioed for an ambulance and for an additional unit to come to the scene.
Officer Cathcart put Burns into his patrol car and attempted to calm her down. Still crying, she only gave "bits of information." She told Officer Cathcart that her name was Catherine, that appellant had "assaulted her," that he lived on "Chapel Road," and that "she was at her friend's house, Robert Lambert, on Bay Street."
An ambulance arrived and took Burns to the hospital. Officer Cathcart interviewed Burns at the hospital about one half hour after he had found her. Burns told Officer Cathcart the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...4–323(c) governs the “manner of objections during jury selection,” including objections made during voir dire. Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95, 142, 882 A.2d 900 (2005) (citing Baker v. State, 157 Md.App. 600, 609, 610, 853 A.2d 796 (2004); Newman v. State, 156 Md.App. 20, 50–51, 845 A.2......
-
Walter Paul Bishop v. State
...in which “Maryland courts have required merger based solely on the principle of fundamental fairness”— Monoker and Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95, 882 A.2d 900 (2005), and we have found none that have done so after Carroll. See Carroll, 428 Md. at 695 n. 6, 53 A.3d 1159. In Monoker, the......
-
In re J.H.
...by way of constitutional provision, statute, rule, or "bear[s] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." Marquardt v. State , 164 Md. App. 95, 123, 882 A.2d 900 (2005) (quoting Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) ); See also Parker v. State , 156 Md......
-
Pair v. State
...Williams v. State, 323 Md. at 321, 593 A.2d 671; Claggett v. State, 108 Md.App. 32, 51–53, 670 A.2d 1002 (1996); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95, 149–52, 882 A.2d 900 (2005). In Walker v. State, 53 Md.App. 171, 201, 452 A.2d 1234 (1982), this Court explained: If the Legislature intended ......