Rainey v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1938, Sept. Term, 2017,1938, Sept. Term, 2017 |
| Citation | 227 A.3d 1137,246 Md.App. 160 |
| Parties | Ronnie Lee RAINEY, Sr. v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Submitted by: Juan P. Reyes (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Sarah P. Pritzlaff (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In a bifurcated proceeding, Ronnie Lee Rainey, Sr., appellant, pleaded guilty, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, to facts constituting the actus reus of first-degree murder and related offenses,1 but elected a jury trial on the issue of criminal responsibility. Thereafter, a jury found that, at the time of the offenses, Rainey was criminally responsible for them. After the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment plus additional terms for the related offenses,2 Rainey noted this appeal, raising the following question:
Were Rainey’s constitutional rights violated when the circuit court permitted the State to introduce into evidence testimonial statements in the form of psychological test results of a non-testifying expert, through the testimony of another expert who did not perform the relevant psychological testing, and where Rainey had no opportunity to confront the non-testifying expert?
Although we conclude that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence the testimonial statements of a non-testifying expert, the resulting error was harmless, and we therefore affirm.
Rainey and his wife, Lisa Renee Rainey, were having marital difficulties. On Sunday, May 12, 2013, following a domestic dispute, Lisa Rainey, accompanied by her children, Arialle Shelton (Rainey’s stepdaughter) and Ronnie Lee Rainey, Jr. (Rainey’s son, hereafter "R.J."), left the family home in Laurel, Maryland and sought refuge in a nearby hotel.
The next morning, Rainey sent a text message to Lisa, informing her that he was leaving the family home. Believing that Rainey was not there, Lisa and her children returned home to pick up clothes for R.J. and to check on the family dog. As a precaution, Arialle called her friend, Kevin James, and asked him to meet them at the family home and verify that Rainey was not there.3
James arrived first and, upon observing that Rainey’s car was not parked in front of the home, informed Arialle, by phone, that it was safe to proceed. He had second thoughts, however, and went to the back of the home, where he saw Rainey’s vehicle. James then ran towards Arialle and the other family members and warned them that "[s]omething [was] wrong" and that they should return to their vehicle, but his warning was too late—by then, Rainey had emerged from the house, brandishing a handgun. Rainey pointed the weapon at James while ordering the others to come inside the house. Rainey’s family members attempted to return to Arialle’s car, but Rainey turned and pointed his gun at them and repeated his order that they come inside. Meanwhile, James escaped by climbing over a fence.
Lisa, Arialle, and R.J. complied with Rainey’s order and entered the house. Once they were inside, Rainey ordered them into the living room. Lisa and Arialle sat down on a couch, and R.J. stood behind them. Rainey and Lisa then engaged in a "conversation" about the events of the preceding day. According to R.J., Rainey asked how was he "supposed to feel comfortable," and Lisa explained why she had left and not immediately returned. Then, the "back and forth" concluded, and Rainey declared, "Before I lose y’all, I would rather just take y’all," whereupon he shot and killed Lisa and Arialle and shot at R.J. but missed, striking his cap instead. R.J. fled out the back door and ran to a neighbor’s house.
Just before 10:00 a.m. that morning, a Prince George’s County 911 dispatcher received a call, placed by Rainey, informing the dispatcher that he had just shot his wife and his stepdaughter and had attempted to shoot his son at their home. Rainey further told the dispatcher that he intended to shoot himself.
Prince George’s County Police Officers responded to that call and created a perimeter around Rainey’s home. Rainey eventually surrendered, whereupon police officers entered the home and found Lisa Rainey and Arialle Shelton, in the living room, both deceased, with gunshot wounds to the head.
Rainey was arrested and transported to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Prince George’s County Police Department. During that trip, he admitted that he had killed his wife and stepdaughter. Upon arriving at the police station, he was administered Miranda4 advisements, and he thereafter gave a recorded statement, once again admitting that he had killed Lisa and Arialle. The police recovered Rainey’s cell phone and discovered a 28-minute-long message that Rainey had recorded the previous evening, stating that he would take Lisa and himself "out" before he would allow her to leave him.
On June 4, 2013, an indictment was returned, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, charging Rainey with first- and second-degree murder of both Lisa Rainey and Arialle Shelton; attempted first- and second-degree murder, and first- and second-degree assault, of Ronnie Lee Rainey, Jr.; first- and second-degree assault of Kevin James; and four counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, one for each victim. Ten days later, Rainey, through counsel, filed a motion seeking permission to be examined by a defense expert, Thomas Hyde, M.D., to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. That motion was granted, and, after Rainey had been examined by both Dr. Hyde and a State expert, a hearing was held, in February 2014, to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. The circuit court found that he was not and ordered that Rainey be committed to the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center.
While at Perkins, Rainey "was referred for a psychological evaluation" to include "diagnostic clarification, personality functioning, and the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms and cognitive disabilities." During that evaluation, Rainey was given several psychological tests: a "Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology" ("SIMS"); a "Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd Edition" ("SIRS-2"); a "Test of Memory Malingering" ("TOMM"); and a "Personality Assessment Inventory" ("PAI"). A report was prepared, dated November 20, 2014 and signed by two psychologists, Aryeh Kanal, Psy.D., a psychology associate doctorate, and G.S. Marshall Cowan, III, Psy.D., the supervising psychologist. According to the report (hereafter "Kanal report"), Rainey’s scores "varied" on tests of malingering, but, in the opinion of the authors, "it would appear that Mr. Rainey’s reported symptoms are in fact feigned or exaggerated, but that he is not likely to exaggerate psychotic or unusual symptoms in other domains of functioning."
Eventually, Rainey was found competent to stand trial. Then, in September 2015, Rainey, through counsel, filed a written plea of not criminally responsible. He ultimately reached a plea agreement, whereby he would plead to having committed the actus reus of every offense charged in the indictment, while reserving the issue of his criminal responsibility for a jury trial.
In 2017, a five-day trial was held on the issue of criminal responsibility. The defense called two witnesses: Paul Smith, Rainey’s neighbor at the time of the killings; and Dr. Hyde, Rainey’s medical expert.
Smith, who lived across the street from Rainey, testified that, on May 11, 2013, two days before the killings, he had observed Rainey walking his dog. Shortly thereafter, he heard a "loud noise," which he recognized was a lightning strike. Smith went outside to investigate whether there had been any damage to his property and discovered that a tree in his yard had been struck by lightning. Rainey was outside when Smith ventured out, and Smith spoke with him "briefly." Although he did not notice "anything wrong with" Rainey, Smith testified that Rainey "might have mentioned that he was struck, but he [couldn’t] recall."
Dr. Hyde, a neuroscientist and behavioral neurologist, who was admitted as an expert "in the field of neurology and psychiatry for the purpose of testifying as to criminality," testified that he had examined Rainey four separate times over a two-year period. In addition to those examinations, he had further examined the materials provided by the State in discovery, including various recordings and videos, as well as notes and reports, and he had also interviewed Rainey’s former wife, Patricia Rainey. After considering that information, Dr. Hyde opined that Rainey suffered from a traumatic brain injury induced by the lightning strike that had occurred two days before the killings. Consequently, in Dr. Hyde’s opinion, Rainey was not criminally responsible. Dr. Hyde further opined that Rainey was not malingering, stating that he had found no "evidence of that upon [his] examination of" Rainey. Dr. Hyde conceded, however, that his opinion was based largely upon Rainey’s self-reported symptoms and that he had observed no "evidence of trauma, deformity or scarring" when examining Rainey’s head.
The State presented testimony of Lisa Rainey’s mother, Velma Cook; R.J.; James; and its psychiatric expert, Annette Hanson, M.D. The testimony of R.J. and James, the only survivors of the shootings, was summarized previously; we shall briefly outline the testimony of the others as relevant to this appeal.
Ms. Cook testified that, on May 13, 2013, that is, the day of the killings, Rainey called her and said, "I am going to kill your daughter and I am going to kill myself." He then hung up. Cook tried to call back but "couldn’t get an answer."
Phone records indicated that Rainey had placed that call at 9:55 a.m. and that he placed the ensuing "911" call less than a minute later.
Prior to Dr. Hanson’s testimony, the defense moved in limine to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazel v. State
......97, 109 (2013)). Once error is established, the. burden is on the State to show that the error was not. prejudicial. See Dionas , 436 Md. at 108. The. harmless error "standard must be applied 'in a. manner that does not encroach upon the jury's. judgment.'" Rainey v. State , 246 Md.App. 160, 185 (2020) (quoting Dionas , 436 Md. at 109),. cert. denied , 468 Md. 556 (2020). In conducting a. harmless error analysis, "the issue is not what evidence. was available to the jury, but rather what evidence the jury,. in fact, used to ......
-
Vetra v. State
......341,. 353 (2017) (citing Simpson v. State , 442 Md. 446,. 457 (2015)). Among the factors to consider are "the. nature, and the effect, of the purported error upon the jury. . . .; and the strength of the State's case, from the. perspective of the jury." Rainey v. State , 246. Md.App. 160, 185 (2020). . . The. Court of Appeals, in Williams v. State , addressed. when cumulative prejudice may rise to the level of reversable. error. 342 Md. 724, 753 (1996). There, Mr. Williams was. arrested and charged ......
-
Kelly v. State
...what it referred to as a "core class" of statements, namely, affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, and confessions. Rainey v. State, 246 Md.App. 160, 172, cert. denied, 468 Md. 556 (2020) (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52). Following Crawford, the Court articulated the "primary purpos......
-
Seck v. State
...including the length of those deliberations, and the strength of the State's case, from the perspective of the jury." Rainey v. State, 246 Md.App. 160, 185, denied, 468 Md. 556 (2020) (cleaned up). The jury's behavior during deliberations supports our conclusion. The jury began deliberating......