Sewell v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2188, Sept. Term, 2016,2188, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Citation | 180 A.3d 670,236 Md.App. 96 |
| Parties | Kevin SEWELL v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Erin C. Murphy (Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White on the brief), all of Baltimore, MD for Appellant.
Argued by: Peter R. Naugle (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief), all of Baltimore, MD for Appellee.
Panel: Wright, Graeff, Irma S. Raker (Senior Judge, specially assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Raker, J.Appellant Kevin Sewell appeals from the judgments of convictions in the Circuit Court for Worcester County for the offenses of first degree murder, child abuse in the first degree, and neglect of a minor. He presents the following questions for our review:
We shall hold that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence communications between appellant and his wife which were privileged marital communications. Because we reverse on this issue, we do not address appellant's second issue.1
The Grand Jury for Worcester County returned an indictment charging appellant with the offenses of first degree murder, child abuse in the first degree, second degree murder, and neglect of a minor child. He proceeded to trial before a jury and on September 23, 2015, the jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder, child abuse in the first degree, and neglect of a minor child. The court imposed a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder; thirty years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the life term, for child abuse; and a term of five years' imprisonment to be served consecutive to the life term for neglect.
The following facts emerged at trial. The victim in this case was Luke Hill, a child born on March 28, 2012. Luke died on May 5, 2015, and according to Dr. Wendy Gunther, the cause of his death was shaken/slam syndrome, with additional blunt trauma to Luke's chest, abdomen, back, and extremities, and bite marks on his body.
Appellant was Luke's uncle. He is married to Amanda Sewell, the sister of the victim's mother, Victoria Harmon. Ms. Harmon testified that Amanda and appellant would babysit Luke occasionally, and that she drove Luke to their house on May 2, 2015, leaving him there overnight. When Amanda returned Luke to Ms. Harmon on May 3, his eyes were closed, he was making a "phlegmy kind of sound," and he was covered in bruises. Ms. Harmon called 911 immediately. Luke was transported to the hospital where he died on May 5. Several witnesses testified that Luke had no injuries before he arrived at appellant's home. Robert Nottingham, a firefighter, testified that on May 3, he had just returned from work when Nick Miller (Ms. Harmon's fiancé) asked him to look at Luke. From his training, he realized that Luke needed an ambulance immediately.
The State charged appellant and Amanda with crimes related to Luke's death. The State compelled Amanda to testify against appellant, granting her use immunity for her testimony.
On December 14, 2015, appellant filed a pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence text messages sent by him to his wife, arguing that the messages should be excluded as violative of the marital privilege. On January 13, 2016, the court held a hearing on appellant's motion. The court denied the motion in an order on January 20, without specifying its reasoning.
At trial on September 20, 2016, the State delivered the first two-thirds of its opening statement2 speaking as the victim. Appellant did not object at any time during the State's opening statement.
During trial, the State introduced photographs of Amanda's phone screen, displaying the text messages she and appellant exchanged on May 3, with timestamps added to almost every text message. Appellant renewed his objection to the text message evidence, which the court overruled. Next, the prosecutor and Amanda read the texts, with the prosecutor reading appellant's texts and Amanda reading her own. They read the texts to the jury as follows:3
On cross-examination, Amanda testified that she had called her sister the night prior because Luke was not well, and told her that Luke had a knot on his head, bruises like black eyes, and additional bruises behind his ears and on his arms, legs, and chest. Her sister did not check on Luke, nor did she come and get him. After several other neighbors and the firefighter Mr. Nottingham testified, the Warden of the Worcester County jail and Jason Hill, an inmate there, testified that appellant told Hill that he struck Luke and Hill reported it to the Warden.
Appellant called no witnesses.
Fifteen percent of the prosecutor's closing argument4 consisted of reviewing the text messages between appellant and Amanda as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sewell
...and neglect of a minor child. Sewell timely appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported decision, Sewell v. State , 236 Md. App. 96, 114, 180 A.3d 670 (2018), the intermediate appellate court ruled that the text messages between Sewell and his wife were marital communications an......
-
State v. Sewell
...child abuse, and neglect of a minor child. Sewell timely appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported decision, Sewell v. State, 236 Md. App. 96, 114 (2018), the intermediate appellate court ruled that the text messages between Sewell and his wife were marital communications and,......
-
Cooper v. State
...marriage"). Either spouse has "the right to preclude the disclosure of any confidential communications between the spouses." Sewell v. State, 236 Md. App. 96, 111, cert. granted, 459 Md. 400 (2018). This Court recently has explained:Private discussions and exchanged information between spou......
-
People v. Bartlett
...by 1994 PA 67 and 2000 PA 182. [4] We agree with the circuit court's rejection of defendant's reliance on Maryland law in Sewell v State, 180 A.3d 670 (2018), rev'd 205 A.3d 966 (2019). The statutory language applied in Sewell provided that one spouse is not competent to disclose "any confi......
-
Reported Decisions
...into evidence. The defendant was convicted and appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported decision, Sewell v. State, 236 Md. App. 96, 180 A.3d 670 (2018), the intermediate appellate court ruled that the text messages were marital communications entitled to a presumption of conf......