Moore v. State

Decision Date02 May 2011
Docket NumberSept. Term,2008.,No. 1151,1151
Citation18 A.3d 981,198 Md.App. 655
PartiesLaura Jean MOOREv.STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

W. Bradley Ney (Lynn M. Deavers, Dow Lohmes PLLC, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Jessica V. Carter (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.Panel: *HOLLANDER, WOODWARD, JUDITH C. ENSOR (Specially Assigned), JJ.WOODWARD, J.

On May 2, 2008, a jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County convicted appellant, Laura Jean Moore 1, of 37 criminal offenses relating to the possession and issuance of counterfeit United States currency, theft, forgery, uttering, and making a false statement to a police officer. The court sentenced appellant to a total of 40 years' incarceration, with all but 15 years suspended. On appeal, appellant presents five questions for our review,2 which we have condensed into three questions:

I. Were appellant's convictions for possessing counterfeit currency, issuing counterfeit currency, uttering, and theft multiplicitous?

II. Was there sufficient evidence to support appellant's convictions for offenses arising out of the incidents at Super Fresh (Counts 10, 11, and 12), Rite Aid (Counts 13, 14, and 15), Frederick County Sheriff's Office (Counts 35 and 74), and Brunswick City Police Department (Count 42)?

III. Should this Court remand for re-sentencing?

For the reasons set forth herein, we shall vacate appellant's convictions and sentences on Counts 6, 7, 32, 33, and 37, vacate only the sentences on Counts 3, 29, 66, and 69, and affirm the balance of the judgments.

BACKGROUND

The instant case arises from a series of incidents that occurred in Frederick County, Maryland between August and October 2006 regarding appellant's involvement with counterfeit currency and forged instruments. Appellant was charged in a 75–count criminal information, but prior to trial, the State entered a nolle prosequi to 37 of the 75 counts. The case went to trial on the remaining 38 counts. The following facts relevant to the instant appeal were developed in the State's case in chief.

Family Dollar—August 20, 2006

On August 20, 2006, then Chief of Police Donald Rough of the Brunswick City Police Department responded to a call that suspected counterfeit currency was passed at a Family Dollar store in Brunswick, Maryland. Upon arriving at Family Dollar, Chief Rough interviewed Tanya Flabbi, the cashier who received the suspect currency. Chief Rough recovered two $20 bills and recorded a description of the individual who presented the currency in the transaction. Chief Rough later gave the suspect bills to another officer of the Brunswick City Police Department, who secured the evidence in preparation for submission to the United States Secret Service.

At trial, Flabbi identified appellant as the individual who presented currency that “felt very smooth” and was “dark in color.” Flabbi testified that she tested the bills with a counterfeit pen, alerted her manager, and provided a description of appellant to the police.

Rite Aid and Super Fresh—August 24, 2006
1.

Four days later on August 24, 2006, Officer Chris Stafford of the Brunswick City Police Department responded to a call that possible counterfeit currency was passed at a Rite Aid store in a Brunswick shopping center. Officer Stafford spoke with Roxanne Bannon, the cashier involved in the transaction, and Patsy Howell, the shift supervisor. Officer Stafford recovered a $20 counterfeit bill and secured the evidence for the Secret Service.

Bannon testified that a woman who was acting “odd” paid for a pack of cigarettes with a “strange” $20 bill. After the transaction, Bannon notified Howell, her supervisor. Howell called the police and Bannon provided a physical description of the suspect. Bannon recalled that the individual who presented the currency was “about five four-ish, had her hair pinned back,” which was “curly, brown, brownish-red.” Bannon, however, was unable to identify appellant at trial as the woman who presented the counterfeit currency.

Howell testified that the currency to which Bannon alerted her “was not a normal $20 bill.” Howell stated that “the bill seemed a little thicker ..., [and] the ink on it was dark.” Although Howell did not see the individual who presented the $20 bill to Bannon, she testified that appellant came into the Rite Aid store several months later, identified herself as Laura Moore,” and “asked to speak to the cashier who had I.D.'d her.” According to Howell, appellant stated that she was “being accused of passing a counterfeit $20 bill and that the police had searched her house.

2.

After leaving the Rite Aid store, on August 24, 2006, Officer Stafford encountered Rosemary Abrecht, a cashier at a Super Fresh supermarket located in the same shopping center. Abrecht and another Super Fresh employee told Officer Stafford that they also had received a suspicious $20 bill during a transaction that day. Officer Stafford took possession of the currency and observed that it bore the same serial number as the bill that he had just received from Rite Aid. The currency recovered from Abrecht was also secured for presentation to the Secret Service.

At trial, Abrecht recounted that, as she was closing her check out lane, she noticed that she had received some “fake money” that she knew “wasn't real” after holding it in her hand. According to Abrecht, the money “felt real smooth to the touch, like a different texture of paper.” She could not remember, however, who gave her the suspect currency. Abrecht testified that, while she was outside with some co-workers during a break, she noticed Officer Stafford walk by them. Abrecht called Officer Stafford over and handed him the bill.

Abrecht then recalled that appellant returned later to Super Fresh to discuss counterfeit money. Abrecht stated that she followed appellant out of the store and “told [appellant] I really didn't think she was the one that did it.” Abrecht testified that, [w]hen this happened I tried to go back in mind and think who gave me all these twenties. Um, [appellant]'s not the person that I had in mind.”

Magic Mo's—August 25, 2006

The next day, August 25, 2006, appellant went to purchase gas from Magic Mo's gas station and convenience store in Frederick, Maryland. When appellant attempted to pay for gas with a $20 bill, Mohammed Mohiuddin, the owner of Magic Mo's, tested the bill with a counterfeit pen and informed appellant that it was counterfeit. After appellant gave him a genuine $20 bill in exchange for the counterfeit bill, Mohiuddin told her that he still wanted to call the police.

Officer Melissa Zapato of the Frederick Police Department responded to the report of counterfeit currency being presented at Magic Mo's. Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Zapato was greeted by appellant. Mohiuddin then approached Officer Zapato, advised her that appellant had attempted to pay with what he believed to be a counterfeit $20 bill, and gave the counterfeit bill to Officer Zapato. Officer Zapato interviewed appellant, and appellant was completely surprised and taken aback by the questioning. During the interview, appellant voluntarily looked through her wallet, in which Officer Zapato found another $20 bill with the same serial number as the $20 bill given to Officer Zapato by Mohiuddin. Officer Zapato took the two counterfeit $20 bills back to the station, but did not arrest appellant.

Family Dollar and Brunswick City Police DepartmentAugust 27, 2006

On August 27, 2006, at the same Family Dollar store in Brunswick, appellant gave the cashier one counterfeit $100 bill to pay for a purchase. The cashier called the police, and Deputy Rick Matthews of the Brunswick City Police Department responded. Appellant was present at the store when Deputy Matthews arrived. After recovering from the store cashier a $100 bill that tested positive as counterfeit by a detection pen, Deputy Matthews spoke with appellant and took her picture, but did not arrest her. Later that afternoon, appellant went to the Brunswick City Police Department to meet with Deputy Matthews. During that meeting, appellant gave Deputy Matthews what she suspected was a counterfeit $20 bill. Appellant told Deputy Matthews that she believed that she obtained the currency while shopping at either the Rite Aid or Super Fresh.

M & T Bank—September 6, 2006

On September 6, 2006, appellant attempted to pass two forged checks at the M & T Bank in Frederick in exchange for cash or credit on her overdrawn account. Because appellant's account was overdrawn at that time, the bank refused to cash the checks and contacted the issuer, First Rehabilitation Resources, Inc., to verify the checks' authenticity. Upon learning that the checks were not authentic, the bank contacted its security department, which in turn contacted the police.

Frederick County Sheriff's OfficeSeptember 23, 2006

On September 23, 2006, appellant visited the Frederick County Sheriff's office and met with Sergeant Eric Byers. Appellant entered the office and asked to speak with Sergeant Byers regarding the incidents involving counterfeit currency. Specifically, appellant admitted that she had used a $20 counterfeit bill at Magic Mo's on August 25, 2006, and paid with a $100 counterfeit bill at a Family Dollar store on August 27, 2006. Appellant also provided Sergeant Byers with eight counterfeit bills, which bore two serial numbers. According to Sergeant Byers, appellant stated that her aunt sent greeting cards, which contained the counterfeit bills, to appellant's grandchildren. Sergeant Byers recalled that the counterfeit nature of the bills was apparent due to the stiffness and thickness of the paper on which they were printed.

Appellant also discussed with Sergeant Byers what appellant described as two “bad checks” that she tried to negotiate at the M & T Bank in Frederick on September 6, 2006. Appellant told Sergeant Byers that she had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • People v. Whitmer
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 24, 2014
    ...263 P.3d 222 ["[t]he unit of prosecution test is a test of statutory interpretation"] [nonpub. opn.]; Moore v. State (2011) 198 Md.App. 655, 680, 18 A.3d 981, 995 ["The key to the determination of the unit of prosecution is legislative intent."]; State v. Olsson (N.M.Ct.App.2007) 143 N.M. 3......
  • Walter Paul Bishop v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 26, 2014
    ...The overarching merger doctrine finds its roots in the double jeopardy clauses of federal and Maryland common law, Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 684–85, 18 A.3d 981 (2011), and “provides the criminally accused with protection from ... multiple punishment stemming from the same offense.” ......
  • Twigg v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • October 1, 2014
    ...merge into the conviction for sexual child abuse, the separate sentences for those convictions must be vacated. See Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 18 A.3d 981 (2011). As a result, appellant is no longer subject to the trial court's sentences totaling forty years of incarceration. What is ......
  • Donati v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2014
    ...support his argument is misplaced. “The key to the determination of the unit of prosecution is legislative intent.” Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 680, 18 A.3d 981 (2011). Accord Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678, 692, 827 A.2d 68 (2003) ( “ ‘whether a particular course of conduct constitutes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 14 PRESERVATION AND ISSUE SELECTION
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State and Federal (MSBA) (2023 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. State, 11 Md. App. 385 (1971). Accord Kares v. State, 215 Md. 396 (1958); Johnson v. State, 223 Md. 479 (1960); Moore v. State, 198 Md. App. 655 (2011).[69] Rule 4-251(b)(1) requires that a "motion asserting a defect in the charging document other than its failure to show jurisdiction in......
  • Merger Doctrine and the Rule of Lenity
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Warnken's Maryland Criminal Procedure (MSBA) Chapter 30 Sentencing
    • Invalid date
    ...with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable merges under the rule of lenity into assault with intent to murder. In Moore v. State, 198 Md. App. 655, 703-04 (2011), the Court of Special Appeals held that the charge of uttering merges under the rule of lenity into attempted theft over $500. In......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT