Sayles v. State
| Citation | 245 Md.App. 128,226 A.3d 349 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2797, September Term, 2018,2798, September Term, 2018 |
| Parties | Karon SAYLES v. STATE of Maryland Dalik Daniel Oxely v. State of Maryland Bobby Jamar Johnson v. State of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Rachel Marblestone Kamins (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Kenneth E. McPherson, Assigned Public Defender, on the brief, Fulton, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Kristin C. Tracy, Assigned Public Defender (Law Offices of Thomas M. Donnelly, LLC, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant
Argued by: Karinna M. Rossi (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Berger, Arthur, James R. Eyler, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Berger, J. Karon Sayles, Dalik Daniel Oxely and Bobby Jamar Johnson (collectively, the "appellants") were convicted of multiple offenses stemming from a home invasion and armed robbery that occurred in Silver Spring, Maryland on August 1-2, 2017.
Also charged with committing the home invasion and related crimes were Younus Muayad Alaameri and Edwin Ajeo, both of whom entered guilty pleas before the appellants' trial began. The appellants were tried together before a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
On appeal, the appellants present six issues for our review,1 which we have rephrased as follows:
For the reasons explained herein, we shall hold that the trial court's instructions regarding jury nullification contained inaccurate statements of law that prejudiced the appellants. We, therefore, shall vacate the appellants' convictions and remand for a new trial. Because the issue premised upon the trial court's denial of Sayles's motion to suppress is likely to arise on retrial, we shall also address this issue. We shall not address the remaining appellate issues.
At the time of the incidents forming the basis for the appeal, Aracely Ochoa resided in a two-bedroom apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland, which she shared with her husband, David Rivera; Ms. Ochoa's mother and stepfather, Blanco Armina Campos and Rolando Callejas; and Ms. Ochoa and Mr. Rivera's minor son, D.R. Ms. Ochoa worked as a manager at a nearby Cash Depot store, where customers would come to cash checks and send money orders.
On August 1, 2017, Ms. Ochoa worked until approximately 8:30 p.m., after which she took the bus home. She left shortly thereafter to pick up her son from her sister's home. When leaving for her sister's home, Ms. Ochoa observed a group of men outside her apartment who were dressed like maintenance workers. After Ms. Ochoa left, four men knocked on the apartment door. Mr. Rivera opened the door; the men claimed they were there for maintenance and insisted on entering the apartment. When Ms. Ochoa returned with D.R., the apartment door was open and four men were inside with Mr. Rivera. Mr. Callejas was also present in the apartment, but Ms. Campos was still at work. Ms. Ochoa took D.R. to a bedroom to put him to bed.
When Ms. Ochoa returned to the living room, the four men asked her about remodeling the apartment. A fifth man entered the apartment shortly thereafter. Ms. Ochoa recalled that all five men were wearing gloves. Ms. Ochoa recognized one of the men, Younus Alaameri, as a regular customer at Cash Depot. Alaameri would come into Cash Depot to wire money to Iraq; Ms. Ochoa referred to him as "Iraq" or "the Iraqi." Alaameri asked the rest of the men if they were "ready," after which four of the men suddenly attacked Mr. Rivera while the man Ms. Ochoa identified as Bobby Johnson held her down. Mr. Rivera, Ms. Ochoa, and Mr. Callejas were bound with zip-ties and forced to lie face-down on the floor.
Alaameri asked Ms. Ochoa for the keys to the Cash Depot and for the alarm system code. Alaameri hit Ms. Ochoa in the head with a pocket-knife and threatened to harm D.R. if Ms. Ochoa did not cooperate. Ms. Ochoa told Alaameri that the keys were in her purse and provided the code to the safe. Ms. Ochoa told Alaameri that she did not have the code to the alarm system. Ms. Ochoa explained at trial that the alarm system activated automatically at 10:00 p.m. and would always be deactivated by the time she arrived at work at approximately 7:30 a.m. the next morning.
Alaameri sent Johnson and Oxely to the Cash Depot. Alaameri told Ms. Ochoa that if the alarm went off at the Cash Depot and she received a telephone call from the alarm company, she should tell them that the two people were cleaning the store. Johnson and Oxely returned to the home and informed the other men that the alarm had sounded when they attempted to enter the Cash Depot. Alaameri threatened to gouge Ms. Ochoa's eye if she did not provide the alarm code.
At approximately midnight, Mr. Callejas's telephone rang. Ms. Campos was attempting to call and tell her husband that she was on her way home from work. After the telephone rang, the men took Ms. Ochoa, Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Callejas into a bedroom and put them on the bed. When Ms. Campos arrived home at approximately 1:00 a.m., she was dragged through the door. One of the men took her purse and put a knife to her side. She was taken to the bedroom where the other family members were located and a blanket was thrown over her face.
Alaameri brought Ms. Ochoa to the living room and told her that she would be going to Cash Depot with some of the men. Alaameri threatened to kill D.R. if Ms. Ochoa made "any stupid step." Johnson and Oxely accompanied Ms. Ochoa to Cash Depot in Ms. Ochoa's family's van. When they arrived, Ms. Ochoa's boss was there, so they returned to the apartment.
After they returned, Alaameri told Ms. Ochoa that the new plan was that Ms. Ochoa would go to work in the morning and retrieve the money then. On the morning of August 2, 2017, Ms. Ochoa was driven to Cash Depot again. This time, she was accompanied by Johnson only. When they arrived, they discovered a crossbar on the door preventing access.
At some point while Ms. Ochoa and Johnson were gone, Oxely put a knife to Mr. Rivera's neck and Mr. Rivera's neck began to bleed. Mr. Rivera and Oxely engaged in "a scuffle" and Oxely dropped the knife, after which Sayles handed Oxely another knife and Oxely "slashed" Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera was able to gain possession of the knife and went out to the living room. Mr. Rivera yelled "police" repeatedly, and Oxely ran out the front door. Mr. Callejas broke a window and climbed out to seek help. Mr. Callejas went to a bus stop, where he found a telephone to call police. Ms. Campos also climbed through the window. When Ms. Ochoa and Johnson returned from the Cash Depot, Ms. Ochoa saw Ms. Campos running across the street. Johnson told Ms. Ochoa to make Ms. Campos go back into the apartment and threatened D.R.'s life. Ms. Ochoa, Ms. Campos, and Johnson returned to the apartment; Mr. Rivera opened the door and pulled Ms. Ochoa and Ms. Campos inside. Johnson "took off running." At this point, all of the assailants had left the apartment. Police were called. After the incident, several items, including a computer, watches, documents, and currency, were missing from the apartment. Police officers arrived at the apartment at approximately 8:00 a.m.
The appellants, Alaameri, and Ajeo were ultimately identified as the men involved in the home invasion and were each charged with forty-two offenses, including home invasion, kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, multiple conspiracy offenses, and other associated offenses. Ajeo entered a guilty plea and testified against the appellants at trial. His testimony described the agreement among the five men to make "quick money" by using Ms. Ochoa to rob the Cash Depot store. Ajeo further testified regarding the planning undertaken by the five men in the days preceding the home invasion.
Following a jury trial, Sayles was found guilty of home invasion, multiple counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, second-degree burglary, first-degree assault, multiple counts of second-degree assault, multiple counts of false imprisonment, motor vehicle theft, and associated conspiracies. Sayles was sentenced to a total term of forty-two years in prison. Oxely was found guilty of home invasion, multiple counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, second-degree burglary, first-degree assault, multiple counts of second-degree assault, multiple counts of false imprisonment, motor vehicle theft, and associated conspiracies. Oxely was sentenced to a total term of fifty years' imprisonment. Johnson was found guilty of home invasion, multiple counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, second-degree burglary, multiple counts of second-degree assault, multiple counts of false imprisonment, motor vehicle theft, and associated conspiracies.3 Johnson was sentenced to a term of forty years' imprisonment.4
Additional facts shall be discussed as necessitated by our consideration of the issues on appeal.
The first issues we shall address on appeal focus on the circuit court's response to several jury notes inquiring about jury nullification.
On the first day of jury deliberations on August 29, 2018, the jury sent its first of three notes5 about jury nullification, inquiring, "Do we have the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sayles
...reported opinion, reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case to that court for a new trial. See Sayles v. State, 245 Md. App. 128, 167, 226 A.3d 349, 372 (2020). In doing so, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the power of jury nullification exists and held that th......
-
Impac Mortg. Holdings, Inc. v. Timm
... ... that the defendants intended to injure Series B and Series C shareholders by stripping them of their economic rights were insufficient to state a claim and that they "simply seek, without a colorable basis in fact, to convert a garden variety breach of contract claim into a claim for punitive ... ...
-
Sayles v. State, 2794
...statements of law that prejudiced the appellants and vacated the appellants' convictions and remand for a new trial. Sayles v. State, 245 Md. App. 128, 373 (2020). We separately addressed the issue regarding Sayles's motion to suppress photographic identifications because it was likely to a......