Parks v. State

• Docket Number: 907-2022
• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Parties: TERRY LEE PARKS, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

TERRY LEE PARKS, JR.
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 907-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 22, 2023

UNREPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Wicomico County Case No. C-22-CR-21-000389

Nazarian, Ripken, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Ripken, J.

2

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Terry Lee Parks, Jr. ("Appellant") was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, fourth degree sexual offense, and second degree assault. The court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years of incarceration for sexual abuse of a minor. The court suspended twelve years and six months of that sentence. The sentence included five years of supervised probation upon release. For the fourth degree sexual offense, Appellant was sentenced to one year of concurrent incarceration. For sentencing purposes, the assault conviction was merged with the conviction for fourth degree sexual offense. Appellant noted this timely appeal and presents two questions for our review:^[1]

I. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for sexual abuse of a minor

II. Whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of Appellant's prior convictions for sexual abuse of a minor and third degree sexual offense

For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged with sexually assaulting "K.", a 14-year-old child who lived next door to him.^[2] During the motions hearings and at trial, Appellant did not dispute that some form of sexual contact had occurred. Instead, he asserted a defense of voluntary

3

intoxication.^[3]

A. Pre-Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Prior Convictions

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion seeking to introduce evidence at trial that, in 2003, Appellant was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and third degree sexual offense. The motion was based on Section 10-923 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP") of the Maryland Code ("Md. Code"), which provides for the admissibility of "other sexually assaultive behavior by the defendant" offered to (1) prove lack of consent or (2) rebut an allegation "that a minor victim fabricated the sexual offense." In addition, the State filed notice of its intent to introduce the prior convictions pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-404(b), which provides that evidence of other crimes may be admissible for limited purposes, including proof of intent. Appellant responsively, filed a motion in limine to exclude the prior convictions.

Following an evidentiary hearing, which we shall discuss in more detail below, the motions court ruled that the prior convictions were admissible under CJP § 10-923, to prove lack of consent, and were also admissible pursuant to Rule 5-404(b), to prove intent.

B. The Trial

A two-day bench trial was held before a judge who was not the same judge that presided over the motions hearing. Before the first witness was called, the State read the

4

following information into the record, in accordance with the order of the motions court:

[O]n September 23rd of 2003, [Appellant] entered an Alford plea and was convicted of child abuse by a parent and third degree sexual offense. The victim for both counts was the daughter of [Appellant] who was between nine and eleven years of age at the time of the criminal conduct.

The evidence at trial demonstrated that Appellant and his wife, Dawn Parks ("Dawn"), moved next door to K. and K.'s family in March 2007. K. was approximately 18 months old at that time. Less than a month after moving in, Appellant and Dawn's child, "J." was born.^[4]

Appellant, who testified at trial, said that "as time went on, [the two families] became closer knit as far as . . . a community." Similarly, K.'s mother testified that there was a "great neighborly relationship" between the two families. They attended pool parties, barbecues, baby showers, birthday celebrations and graduation parties at each other's homes. Appellant said that K.'s family was "like family" to him, and that he considered K. to be like a "niece."

K. and J. became good friends. They went to the same day care program, attended the same elementary school, and rode the bus together. They regularly played together after school and had "sleep-overs." The Parks family took K. to events, such as ball games. K.'s mother testified that "there were . . . times that . . . they've watched [K.] while we did stuff . . . [o]r vice versa."

K.'s mother became aware that Appellant was a registered sexual offender around

5

the time that he moved to the neighborhood. According to K.'s mother, Dawn told her that the case had been "blown out of proportion by [Appellant's] ex-wife[,]" that "it was hearsay[,]" and that there "wasn't much to it." Dawn said that Appellant "pleaded [guilty] . . . for the benefit of" the victim, Appellant's child from a prior marriage, so that the child "wouldn't be in it or [be] accused of something[.]"

K.'s mother was asked by the prosecutor if she was comfortable having Appellant supervise K. She responded, "Well, I assumed, Dawn was always there, too . . . it was [a] group. It's not like I asked [Appellant] to babysit [K.] herself.... I was comfortable with [K.] being around him in a group environment."

When K. and J. were about 12 years old, K.'s mother and Dawn discussed that the children were "at that age," and therefore required close supervision while they were together, to ensure they were not engaged in risky or dangerous activities. K.'s mother explained her understanding of the expectations: "you know, no more sleep-overs . . . [t]he door is open . . . things like that." Appellant was not involved in this conversation.

On September 16, 2021, Appellant asked J. if K. would like to come over for a "camp fire" that evening. Around 7:00 p.m., J. texted K. "We're having a fire if you want to come over later." After getting permission from her mother, K. responded, "[f]or short [sic] just let me know when." At around 8:30 p.m., J. sent a text message to K. telling her that she could come over.

C. K.'s Testimony

K. testified that Appellant and J. were sitting in chairs around the bonfire when K. arrived. The three of them sat around the fire for about an hour. During that time, K.

6

consumed one and a half "mini bottles" of Fireball, which Appellant provided to her.^[5]

At some point, J. got up and went into a recreational vehicle ("RV") that was parked in the driveway. A short time later, K. went into the RV to "check on" him. J. had a headache and was "resting" on a bunk over the driver's seat. K. laid down on a couch in the RV.

About ten minutes later, Appellant entered the RV and sat on the couch with K. He placed one of K.'s legs across his lap, put his hand on K.'s knee, and started moving his hand back and forth. Appellant then moved his hand up her thigh and rubbed her vagina through her leggings. At one point, he pulled the waistband of her leggings away from her body and put his hand inside of her underwear. With the leg that was resting on Appellant's lap, K. felt a "change" in Appellant's "genital area," which she thought was a "boner."

K. was "shocked," "vulnerable," and "very overwhelmed." She "knew it was getting . . . really inappropriate," but she "froze" and "didn't know what to do." She told Appellant that she had to leave so as not to miss her curfew while this was not so. Appellant said it would be "okay for a few more minutes," and continued to fondle K. A few minutes later, K. got up and went home. She reported the assault to her uncle's girlfriend the same night.

During the encounter, K. surreptitiously took photos and brief videos showing Appellant's actions. She explained that she did so "just because . . . no one ever . . . believes[,] and it's always like a he-said she-said." The photos and videos were

7

admitted into evidence.

D. Appellant's Post-Arrest Statements

Appellant was arrested the next day and gave a voluntary statement to a police detective. The recorded interview and a transcript of the interview were admitted into evidence. Appellant told the detective that, on the date of the incident, he drank one beer and three or four shots of Fireball. Appellant denied giving any alcohol to K. He said that, after J. and K. went into the RV, he followed them to find out "[what was] going on[,]" or "happening in [t]here." He explained that he did not leave J. and K. alone "for very long" because they were "young" and "impressionable." Appellant told the detective that K. and J. were "sacked" and were "falling asleep[,]" and he told them it was time for bed. He said, "[a]t that point, the evening ended."

The detective asked Appellant whether he sat next to K. Appellant acknowledged that he sat on the other end of the couch. When the detective asked Appellant what he remembered after that, Appellant said, "[u]s sitting there, just talking." The detective then showed Appellant the photographs K. had taken during the encounter. After viewing them, Appellant said, "I don't know what kind of state of mind I was in to make me want to do something like that." He added, "the only thing I can think of is . . . I was completely hammered to the point where I had no idea what I was doing."

E. Appellant's Trial Testimony

At trial, Appellant testified that Dawn would participate in the bonfires "from time to time" but "mostly it was myself and [J.]" Appellant stated: "that's my [child] and myself time."

8

Appellant's testimony regarding his alcohol intake the day of the assault differed from what he told the detective after his arrest. At trial, Appellant stated that he consumed a total of 18 miniature bottles of Fireball between 2:00 and 6:30 p.m., which included alcohol he consumed while at work and while...