Montague v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 75,75 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE ERVIN MONTAGUE v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
EVIDENCE - FACTORS AFFECTING ADMISSIBILITY - RELEVANCE OF RAP LYRIC EVIDENCE
The Court of Appeals held that rap lyric evidence has heightened probative value, and is admissible as substantive evidence of a defendant's guilt, when the lyrics bear a close nexus to the details of an alleged crime. When a defendant's rap lyrics bear a close nexus to the details of an alleged crime, those lyrics exceed the low relevance threshold of Maryland Rule 5-401, and are therefore admissible under Maryland Rule 5-402, because they make it more probable that the defendant committed the alleged crime. Petitioner's rap lyrics had a close nexus to details of an alleged murder because the lyrics had a close factual nexus to the details of the murder, had a close temporal nexus to the murder, and recited "stop snitching" references that were published on social media to potentially intimidate witnesses to the murder. As a result of this close nexus, Petitioner's rap lyrics tended to prove his involvement in the murder and served as substantive evidence of his guilt.
EVIDENCE - FACTORS AFFECTING ADMISSIBILITY - PREJUDICIAL EFFECT AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF RAP LYRIC EVIDENCE
The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County did not abuse its discretion in admitting Petitioner's rap lyrics under Maryland Rule 5-403 because the probative value of the lyrics was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Even when relevant, defendant-authored rap lyrics carry inherent prejudicial effect as propensity evidence of the defendant's bad character. For rap lyric evidence to be admitted as substantive evidence of the defendant's involvement in a crime, the evidence must survive a balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice under Rule 5-403. When a close nexus exists between a defendant's rap lyrics and the details of an alleged crime, the heightened probative value of the lyrics is not substantially outweighed by the reduced danger of admitting the lyrics as unfairly prejudicial propensity evidence. When a defendant's rap lyrics are "insufficiently tethered" to the details of an alleged crime, the lyrics should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial propensity evidence. The probative value of Petitioner's rap lyrics was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because a close nexus existed between Petitioner's lyrics and the details of an alleged murder.
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. 02-CR-17-000378
Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ.
Opinion by Getty, J.
In the early 1970s, a multicultural clash of musical influences in the Bronx, New York, spawned a revolutionary genre of music. What began as disc jockeys, like DJ Kool Herc, incorporating spoken verses into elements of Jamaican dance hall, funk, soul, and disco at local parties, initially evolved into "hip-hop" and then became the ubiquitous beat of rap music that is widely disseminated in the United States and world-wide. Over the past five decades, featuring artists such as Run-D.M.C., 2Pac, and Drake, rap music has been closely interwoven with all aspects of American culture. "More than simply entertainment," rap music "is a major part of contemporary identity circuits" and reflects "trends, ideals, [and] conditions in society."1
Accordingly, rap music often influences the behavior of a large segment of society. Relevant to this case, the interconnected relationship between contemporary culture and rap music is illustrated by rap's reinforcement of a "street code." A prevalent feature of this "street code" is that the use of violence is central to retaining respect and enforcing social norms.2 As a result of this interconnected relationship, understanding the "street code" contained in rap music is often essential to understanding "the principles governing . . . interpersonal public behavior."3
This case is about the admissibility of jailhouse rap lyrics composed by Lawrence Montague as substantive evidence that he shot and killed George Forrester. In the early morning hours of January 16, 2017, Mr. Forrester was shot and killed by a drug dealer after he attempted to purchase cocaine using a counterfeit $100 bill. Mr. Forrester's cousin, Tracy Tasker, accompanied him to purchase the drugs and, after witnessing the shooting, fled in Mr. Forrester's vehicle. Ms. Tasker was later arrested for unrelated warrants and identified Mr. Montague as the shooter. Mr. Montague was later indicted for Mr. Forrester's murder.
Three weeks before trial, while incarcerated in the Anne Arundel County Detention Center, Mr. Montague made a telephone call to an unidentified male using another inmate's personal identification number passcode. Mr. Montague requested that the unidentified male record his rap, which included lyrics that matched the details of Mr. Forrester's murder. The rap lyrics also made references to shooting "snitches" and the recording was subsequently uploaded on Instagram. The State sought to introduce the recorded telephone call containing the rap lyrics as substantive evidence of Mr. Montague's guilt, and Mr. Montague moved in limine to exclude the recording. The circuit court admitted the rap lyrics and, on appeal, the Court of Special Appeals agreed that the lyrics are admissible under Maryland Rules 5-401, 5-402, and 5-403.
We also agree. We hold that Mr. Montague's rap lyrics are relevant under Rule 5-401, and therefore admissible under Rule 5-402, because they make it more probable that Mr. Montague shot and killed Mr. Forrester. The rap lyrics bear a close factual and temporal nexus to the details of Mr. Forrester's murder, and that nexus is strengthened byMr. Montague's use of "snitch" references to potentially intimidate witnesses. As a result of this close nexus, we also hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the rap lyrics under Rule 5-403. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
In the early morning hours of January 16, 2017, George Forrester and his cousin, Tracy Tasker, drove to the Woodside Gardens apartment complex in Annapolis to find a drug dealer. Upon arrival, Mr. Forrester pulled his Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle ("SUV") into a parking spot facing 708 Newtowne Drive ("708 Newtowne"). While Ms. Tasker remained in the SUV, Mr. Forrester exited the vehicle to look for a drug dealer. When he saw someone at the back of the parking lot, he walked that way and attempted to purchase cocaine. That attempted drug transaction was unsuccessful.
Mr. Forrester then walked from the back of the parking lot towards a second individual who was standing on the sidewalk between the SUV and 708 Newtowne. After a short verbal exchange with Mr. Forrester, that individual ascended the stairs to an apartment on the second floor of 708 Newtowne. He returned about two minutes later and gave a quantity of drugs to Mr. Forrester. However, according to Ms. Tasker, the $100 bill that Mr. Forrester used to pay for the cocaine was counterfeit.
The drug dealer quickly realized that the bill was counterfeit and pursued Mr. Forrester from 708 Newtowne to the SUV. Sensing his approach, Mr. Forrester moved towards the SUV's driver-side door but did not open it or enter the SUV. Instead, hewalked past the SUV further into the parking lot where the drug dealer, standing on the sidewalk in front of the SUV, confronted him and exclaimed: "[G]oddamn, give me my shit, man."
The drug dealer then raised a firearm and shot Mr. Forrester in the back. Ms. Tasker was attempting to exit the vehicle as this situation unfolded and watched the drug dealer as he fired his weapon. When the drug dealer noticed that Ms. Tasker was in the passenger seat of the SUV, he turned and fled in the direction behind 708 Newtowne. Ms. Tasker exited the SUV, attempted to render aid to Mr. Forrester, and took his pulse. When the security employees of the apartment complex arrived, Ms. Tasker also fled the scene by driving away in Mr. Forrester's vehicle because she had open warrants for her arrest and did not want to be there when law enforcement officers arrived.
Officer Brittany Artigues was the first officer of the Annapolis Police Department to arrive at the crime scene. She began performing lifesaving procedures on Mr. Forrester until paramedics arrived. At trial, Officer Artigues testified that paramedics from the Annapolis Fire Department arrived and, shortly thereafter, she "saw that [Mr. Forrester] left in the ambulance." She then canvassed the scene and located two .40-caliber shell casings and one spent bullet.
Officer Thomas arrived on scene at about 5:00 a.m. to assist with the crime scene investigation.4 Officer Thomas marked and photographed one .40-caliber shell casing on the sidewalk in front of 708 Newtowne, another on the parking lot next to the curb, and aspent bullet nearby. Officer Joseph Mann and Sergeant Jessica Kirschner, among other officers, canvassed the apartment complex for witnesses but had a difficult time gathering information because residents were generally uncooperative.
Shortly after arriving at the Anne Arundel Medical Center, Mr. Forrester was pronounced deceased from the injuries caused by the gunshot.
Two days after the shooting, on January 18, 2017, Annapolis police officers arrested Ms. Tasker for her outstanding warrants, and she was interviewed by Detective Charles Bealefeld. Ms. Tasker admitted that she was the person sitting in the passenger seat of Mr. Forrester's SUV when the drug exchange occurred. She added that she turned and "saw the guy" who raised his firearm and shot Mr. Forrester. Detective Bealefeld displayed photographs from several individual manila folders of potential suspects....
To continue reading
Request your trial