Robinson v. State
Decision Date | 27 January 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
Parties | EMMANUEL FORD ROBINSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Emmanuel Ford Robinson v. State of Maryland, No. 11.
In light of Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434, 26 A.3d 979 (2011) and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454, 31 A.3d 922 (2011) the Court of Appeals held that the trial judge erred, in giving an instruction that "there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case." In accordance with Atkins and Stabb, an "anti-CSI effect" instruction, to be given only in a curative fashion, shall not be entertained without legal and empirical proof that a "CSI effect" exists and is only triggered when a material misstatement of law occurs. The giving of the contested instruction, where the defense counsel merely pointed out what procedures might have been available to the State, but did not misstate the law or the State's burden, effectively relieved the State of its burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court having considered the motion for reconsideration filed in the above-captioned case, it is this 27th day of January, 2014,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the motion be, and it is hereby, granted, and it is further
ORDERED, that the opinion in this case filed on November 27, 2013 be, and it is hereby, recalled and a new opinion filed simultaneously with this order shall replace the opinion on November 27, 2013.
Chief Judge
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
EMMANUEL FORD ROBINSON
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Opinion by Battaglia, J.
In the present case, we are asked to consider whether, in light of Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434, 26 A.3d 979 (2011) and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454, 31 A.3d 922 (2011), a jury instruction in which the trial judge stated:
During this trial, you've heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific tests. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven based upon the evidence, the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
(emphasis added) constituted reversible error when a defense counsel remarked in opening statement:
There will not be any fingerprints from any door, any piece of paper or tape, or whatever they're saying, on any weatherstripping, on the doors, no fingerprints of his. There won't be [the defendant's] DNA on anything, not on any screwdriver, not on any weatherstripping, not on any piece of tape, not on anything. Quite frankly, there's just not, there's absolutely no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Robinson committed these crimes.
In giving the contested instruction, the judge also noted, "what may actually have been off the record, which was our colloquy when we were preparing instructions, it's my understanding that the defense may be arguing, as good defense attorneys do, that therewasn't any scientific link of the defendant to the crime."1
We granted certiorari, Robinson v. State, 430 Md. 11, 59 A.3d 506 (2013), to consider the following questions, which we have renumbered:2
We shall hold that the trial court erred in giving the jury the "scientific or investigative techniques"3 instruction in this case.4
In the present case, Emmanuel Ford Robinson, Petitioner, was charged in a six count indictment5 with various crimes related to events that occurred in Montgomery County,Maryland, on February 28, 2011. He was eventually convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary.6
The State's theory of the case was that Robinson During his opening statement, Robinson's attorney asserted that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by his client:
(emphasis added). Testimony of two police officers, called to the stand by the State, put Spence at the scene of the crime and Robinson in the area, leaving with Spence, after which they both were detained by the police. Defense counsel cross-examined the surveillance team officers8 called by the State whether casting for tool mark impressions had been accomplished or fingerprint and DNA testing requested, as well as questioned a Montgomery County Police Department forensic specialist9 as to whether casting for tool mark impressions had been performed, to which she responded in the negative. No rebuttal testimony was offered by the State before jury instructions were entertained, although, apparently, there was discussion that had occurred among the judge and counsel regarding the proposed jury instructions.
At the close of all of the evidence but before argument, the judge instructed the jury:
During this trial, you've heard testimony of witnesses andmay hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific tests. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven based upon the evidence, the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
(emphasis added). Defense counsel objected to the specific instruction in a bench conference following the giving of all the instructions:
And as to the non-pattern instruction as to police investigative techniques, I object to that instruction being given. I don't believe that the evidence in the case has warranted that such an instruction be given and other than a standard argument given with regard to the absence of evidence to convict my client, I don't believe that there's any other justification for giving that instruction in this case.
The court replied:
All right, well, based upon the opening statement in which it was suggested that there wasn't any fingerprint or DNA evidence, and then what may actually have been off the record, which was our colloquy when we were preparing instructions, it's my understanding that the defense may be arguing, as good defense attorneys do, that there wasn't any scientific link of the defendant to the crime. So I think it's generated by the proffered arguments here and I'll note your objection and...
To continue reading
Request your trial