Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,Sept. Term, 2013.,11 |
| Citation | 436 Md. 560,84 A.3d 69 |
| Parties | Emmanuel Ford ROBINSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael T. Torres, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.
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 there wasn'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
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in providing to the jury, over objection, a “scientific or investigative techniques” instruction where defense counsel merely stated in opening statement that the lack of physical evidence demonstrated the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, where defense counsel never mischaracterized the law, and where the trial court gave the instruction preemptively because defense counsel “may be arguing, as good defense attorneys do, that there wasn't any scientific link of the defendant to the crime”?
2. Where a co-defendant who entered a plea of guilty testified as a defense witness at Petitioner's trial two weeks later, did the trial court err in permitting the State, in the guise of cross-examination of the co-defendant, to effectively read into the record a statement of facts proffered at the co-defendant's guilty plea hearing but never adopted by the co-defendant?
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 indictment 5 with various crimes relatedto 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:
[T]his is a case about speculation. You're not going to hear any witness come in and say that they saw Emmanuel Robinson attempt to pry open any door, attempt to break and enter anywhere, or break and enter into anything....
* * *
The evidence in this case, you'll find, is so inconsistent and so unreliable that without guessing or filling in holes, speculating—which you cannot do, and His Honor will tell you that later—you will more than likely have many more questions than answers as to what really happened on February 28th. You will have very reasonable doubts and many of them, and it only takes one. What we expect the evidence in this case to show is that Mr. Robinson is not guilty of any of the charges, that there is no evidence to show that he pried open or broke into any door.
There is no evidence that he ever attempted to pry open or break into any door. There will be no evidence to show that he ever had a screwdriver on him or any kind of tool like that. 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 his 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.
Another thing is that we expect the evidence will show that there will be no witness who will be able to come in and tell you that they saw Mr. Robinson attempt to get into any of these, into any of these doors; that he was the one doing anything. The best they'll be able to say is they believe that was Mr. Robinson who was present. And His Honor will instruct you later about mere presence at the scene of a situation where somebody may be committing a crime.
(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 officers 8 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 specialist 9 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 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). 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 overrule it.
In closing, defense counsel, in fact, argued:
And we would submit that the testing that's been done in this case and what was done in this case and quite frankly, just some of the examples of the carelessness in the investigation and just how loose the investigators were with the facts in this case and the conclusions that they jumped to in this case would suggest to you that the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt here.
There has been no evidence presented in this case that Mr. Robinson pried open or broke in a door, that he ever attempted to pry in or break into any door, that he ever had any screwdriver or tool on him, that his fingerprints are on any door, screwdriver, tape, weatherstripping or anything, that his DNA was on any of those items. There's just absolutely no evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that Emmanuel Robinson committed these crimes.
After the jury found only Robinson guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, the judge imposed a sentence of ten years' incarceration, with all but four years suspended, followed by two years' probation.
Robinson noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals,10 which affirmed the conviction in an unreported opinion, determining:
[defense counsel] was entitled to—and did—point out what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...issue was preserved. Allen , 204 Md. App. at 721–22, 42 A.3d at 720–21.ii. The Current Gold Standard: Robinson , Stabb , and Atkins . Robinson v. State , Stabb , and Atkins established, after pointing-out the "inconclusive state of the scholarly legal and/or scientific research taken as a w......
-
Porter v. State
...circumscribed. Harmless error review is the standard of review most favorable to the defendant short of an automatic reversal.436 Md. 560, 563, 84 A.3d 69 (2014) (quotation marks, citations and ellipses omitted). The State argues that the instructional errors were harmless because the conce......
-
McGhee v. State
...prone to wrongfully acquit criminal defendants where the prosecution does not produce such evidence. See, e.g. , Robinson v. State , 436 Md. 560, 570 n.11, 84 A.3d 69 (2014) (citing Donald E. Shelton, Juror Expectations for Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases : Perceptions and Reality Abo......
-
Taylor v. State
...decisions. See Atkins v. State , 421 Md. 434, 26 A.3d 979 (2011) ; Stabb v. State , 423 Md. 454, 31 A.3d 922 (2011) ; Robinson v. State , 436 Md. 560, 84 A.3d 69 (2014) ; Hall v. State , 437 Md. 534, 87 A.3d 1287 (2014).1 All of these decisions dealt with the same five-sentence instruction.......