Peterson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13, Sept. Term, 2014.,13, Sept. Term, 2014. |
| Parties | Jerrod M. PETERSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Andrew D. Levy (Kevin D. Docherty, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief for petitioner/cross-respondent.
Sarah Page Pritzlaff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent/cross-petitioner.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J.,* HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.
The underlying facts of this case are not complicated. The setting was a pre-arranged drug deal in Prince George's County. The two purchasers intended to steal the drugs without paying for them. The seller came with fake pills. As the ill-fated transaction proceeded inside a car, things went awry. A gun appeared and the seller was fatally shot in the driver's seat. The question at trial was whether Petitioner Jerrod M. Peterson, one of the purchasers, had pulled the trigger.
The prosecution presented the testimony of several eye witnesses—a man who had accompanied the deceased seller, the other purchaser who accompanied Mr. Peterson, the intermediary who introduced Mr. Peterson to the seller, and the intermediary's sister who was nearby when the incident took place—to prove that Mr. Peterson was the assailant. The defense attempted to create doubt about Mr. Peterson's guilt by cross-examining those witnesses about their perception and memory of the event, and their potential biases. While the trial court allowed the defense to pursue various lines of inquiry, it prohibited defense counsel from asking certain questions.
Mr. Peterson was convicted of first degree felony murder and related charges. He seeks reversal of those convictions on the ground that the trial judge unduly restricted his cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses. He asserts that the limits placed on his counsel's cross-examination not only exceeded the discretion normally accorded to trial judges, but also amounted to a violation of his right under the federal and State constitutions to confront the witnesses against him. As an additional ground for reversal, he asserts that the trial court erred when it declined, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, to allow his counsel to call to the stand the Assistant Public Defender who represented his co-defendant (who had become a prosecution witness under a plea agreement) and question that attorney about a proffer session that her client had with the Assistant State's Attorney and police prior to entering into the plea agreement.
We hold that the limitations placed on counsel's cross-examination—to the extent that Mr. Peterson preserved an objection to them—were within the discretion of the trial judge and did not violate Mr. Peterson's constitutional right of confrontation. While the attorney-client privilege did not apply to the discussion at the proffer session, the court properly refused to allow the testimony that counsel sought to adduce as it was of minimal relevance, cumulative, and the potential for straying into privileged areas outweighed any probative value.
In mid-March 2009, about one week before the shooting that is the subject of this case, Mr. Peterson was introduced to Domonique Gordon by Calvin Rose at the home of Mr. Rose's mother (where Mr. Rose resided) in Landover, Maryland. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Peterson arranged to meet at the same place during the following week in order for Mr. Peterson to purchase ecstasy pills1 from Mr. Gordon.
On the appointed date, late on the evening of March 27, 2009, Mr. Gordon and his friend James McLaurin drove from Washington, D.C., to Mr. Rose's neighborhood with a bag of imitation ecstasy pills. Mr. Gordon parked in front of Mr. Rose's house and sat in the driver's seat while Mr. McLaurin occupied the front passenger seat. Mr. Rose came out of his mother's house to speak with Mr. Gordon, who emerged from the car while Mr. McLaurin remained seated within.
Mr. Peterson and his acquaintance Thomas Hughes had driven separately to the neighborhood in a car provided by Alexis Brown, a friend of Mr. Peterson who accompanied them with her four-year old son. They parked a block from Calvin Rose's house. Ms. Brown and her child remained in the car a block away, out of sight of Mr. Gordon's car, while Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes walked back to meet with Mr. Gordon.
Once the men were together, at Mr. Gordon's suggestion, he and Mr. Peterson got into his car, with Mr. Gordon returning to the driver's seat and Mr. Peterson taking the rear seat on the driver's side, but leaving the door open. Mr. McLaurin had remained seated in the front passenger seat. Mr. Rose and Mr. Hughes were outside in front of the car.
Shortly thereafter, a gun appeared—wielded by Mr. Peterson, according to prosecution witnesses at the trial. The three men inside the car began struggling. A shot was fired, striking Mr. Gordon inside the car. Mr. Hughes ran from the area in front of the car to the back of the car near Mr. Peterson. Mr. McLaurin got out of the car and tried to run away, but was shot in the leg and fell to the ground. At some point during the struggle, Mr. Rose ran back into his mother's house to escape the range of fire and to call 9–1–1. The encounter in the car and the street was observed by Mr. Rose's sister, Cassandra, from a second floor window in the Rose home.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes fled back to Ms. Brown's car with the pills and money and drove off. After the two men left the neighborhood, Mr. Rose stayed on the scene of the shooting and waited for the police to arrive. He received a call on his cell phone from Mr. Peterson, who told him not to say anything to the police. Mr. Rose hung up on Mr. Peterson and gave a statement to the police about what happened. Mr. Gordon died from his gunshot wound
. But Mr. McLaurin survived and spoke with an officer on the scene before being transported to a hospital.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes were arrested the next day. Mr. Gordon's wallet was later recovered from the driver's side of Ms. Brown's car.
A statement of charges was filed against both Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes in connection with the shooting on March 28, 2009. Those charges were superseded when the grand jury returned indictments on May 19, 2009, against both men charging them with several offenses related to the incidents: first degree felony murder, two counts of use of a handgun during the commission of a felony or crime of violence, assault in the first degree, robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, attempted first degree murder, and robbery. Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Case Nos. CT090712A, CT090712B.
Mr. Hughes later entered into a plea agreement with the State several months before his trial, agreeing to testify against Mr. Peterson in exchange for a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, with all but eight years suspended.
After numerous motions hearings and postponements, Mr. Peterson's case came to trial in mid-August 2011. The prosecution theory of the case was that, after arranging for a drug deal with Mr. Gordon, Mr. Peterson planned to rob him; that, for that purpose, he enlisted Mr. Hughes; that Mr. Peterson obtained transportation from his friend Ms. Brown and, unknown to the others, brought a gun to the meeting with Mr. Gordon; and that, during the struggle in Mr. Gordon's car, Mr. Peterson shot him from behind and before he fled back to Ms. Brown's car, also shot Mr. McLaurin.
The State presented the testimony of four witnesses to the shooting: Mr. Rose, his sister Cassandra Rose, Mr. McLaurin, and Mr. Hughes.
Calvin Rose. Calvin Rose testified that he had been friends with Domonique Gordon, and that he knew Jerrod Peterson from living in the same neighborhood for many years. He testified that he had introduced Mr. Peterson and Mr. Gordon to each other the week before the shooting. On the evening of March 27, 2009, Mr. Peterson called him at his home to ask if he had seen Mr. Gordon. Mr. Rose looked outside while he was on the phone. He saw Mr. Gordon in a car outside his house, and informed Mr. Peterson that Mr. Gordon was there. Mr. Rose then went outside to talk to Mr. Gordon. He saw Ms. Brown's car pass by and shortly thereafter Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes (then unknown to Mr. Rose) walked up to them.
At Mr. Gordon's suggestion, Mr. Gordon got back into the driver's seat of the car and Mr. Peterson got in the back seat immediately behind him, but left the door open while Mr. Rose stood near the front of the car. Mr. Rose turned away from the car to speak briefly to Mr. Hughes who was standing farther away from the car. He saw Mr. Hughes' eyes widen, as though he were surprised to see something. When Mr. Rose turned to look back at the car, he realized that Mr. Peterson had a gun, and that the men in the car appeared to be struggling. Mr. Rose ran back into his mother's house to get out of the range of the gun and to protect his daughter, who was standing in the doorway. He testified that, as he reached the house, he heard a gunshot and turned to see Mr. Hughes running toward the car. Then he heard a second shot as he was calling 9–1–1 from inside the house.
After Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hughes left the area, Mr. Rose went outside and saw Mr. McLaurin laying on the ground. After the police arrived, Mr. Peterson called Mr. Rose on his cell phone while Mr. Rose was talking with a police officer on the scene. Mr. Peterson told him not to say anything to the police. Mr. Rose testified that he replied, and hung up. In an interview at the police station, he later identified Mr. Peterson as the man with the gun.
Thomas Hughes. According to Mr. Hughes, he met Mr. Peterson a few days before the shooting through Mr. Hughes' cousin. Mr. Peterson told him that he knew someone who sold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leidig v. State
...other cases, we have reiterated that we read the two constitutional provisions in pari materia . See, e.g., Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 122 n.4, 118 A.3d 925, 934 n.4 (2015) ; Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174, 197-98, 77 A.3d 1030, 1043-44 (2013). In Lodowski v. State, 307 Md. 233, 247, 245......
-
State v. Galicia
...a trial court must allow defense counsel a "threshold level of inquiry" in questioning the State's witnesses. Peterson v. State , 444 Md. 105, 121-22, 118 A.3d 925 (2015). Once that threshold is met, the trial court has considerable discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination to prev......
-
Kazadi v. State
...the probative value of such an inquiry is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or confusion. Peterson v. State , 444 Md. 105, 135-36, 118 A.3d 925 (2015) (emphasis added; citations, quotation marks, and footnotes omitted).Other jurisdictions have applied substantially s......
-
Devincentz v. State
...trial court at a time when the court can consider those grounds and decide whether to make a different ruling." Peterson v. State , 444 Md. 105, 124–25, 118 A.3d 925 (2015). But a proffer is not an absolute requirement for preservation. Before the Maryland Rules of Evidence were adopted, in......
-
Lawyers' Duty of Confidentiality and Clients' Crimes and Frauds
...Ct. 2003) (holding that a lawyer could not invoke his duty of confidentiality to avoid testifying at a deposition).246. Peterson v. State, 118 A.3d 925, 956 (Md. 2015).247. State v. Boatwright, 401 P.3d 657, 661-62 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).248. In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3......