State v. Armstead
Citation | 235 Md.App. 392,178 A.3d 556 |
Decision Date | 01 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 1148, Sept. Term, 2016,1148, Sept. Term, 2016 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Kevin ARMSTEAD |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Edward J. Kelley (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Akiva Y. Gross (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Kehoe, Nazarin, Glenn T. Harell, Jr., Senior Judge, Specially Assigned, JJ.
At the core of this post-conviction case is the rectitude of the failure of trial counsel for Appellee, Kevin Armstead, to object to a so-called "anti-CSI effect"1 voir dire question propounded on 25 March 2009 to the venire by a trial judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Armstead contends that that failure amounts to ineffective assistance of trial counsel because he would have had a reasonable probability of success on direct appeal had a challenge to the propriety of the voir dire question been preserved. The circuit court granted Armstead a new trial in 2016 in this post-conviction proceeding, which Armstead initiated in 2014.
Appellant, the State of Maryland, complains that the award of a new trial is inappropriate because, on 25 March 2009, Maryland common law (such as it was) approved of such a CSI question. Mistakenly, according to the State, the 2016 post-conviction court relied on contrary, subsequently-decided case law to justify ordering a retrial. The State maintains that Armstead's trial counsel was not obligated in 2009 to "see into the future" and anticipate the outcomes in the later-decided cases. Moreover, Armstead "did not call his trial defense counsel, or any other attorney, as a witness [in the post-conviction phase] to testify concerning the propriety of trial counsel's deliberate [trial strategy] decision not to object to the voir dire question." Thus, "there is no basis in which the post-conviction court could conclude that Armstead's [t]rial counsel was ineffective as alleged." Armstead failed, therefore, to satisfy his burden under the factors in Strickland v. Washington2 to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argued also that Armstead failed to demonstrate satisfactorily how he was prejudiced by the lack of an objection, the second factor in the Strickland analysis.
In this appeal, Appellant poses one question:
I. Did the post-conviction court err when it determined, based on case law that issued after Armstead's trial, that Armstead's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the circuit court's issuance of a CSI voir dire question?
We hold that the post-conviction court erred when it granted Armstead's petition and ordered a new trial. Armstead's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the CSI voir dire question. Even if we assumed his trial counsel's omission constituted ineffective representation, the claimed error was harmless, beyond a reasonable doubt, on the circumstances of this record.
We, like the post-conviction court, adopt in relevant part the summary of the evidence presented at Armstead's 2009 trial, as stated in our opinion regarding Armstead's direct appeal, Armstead v. State , 195 Md. App. 599, 605–09, 7 A.3d 169, 172–75 (2010), cert. denied , 418 Md. 191, 13 A.3d 798 (2011) :
On [20 March 2007], Ricardo Paige was found lying dead on the living room floor of his residence at 502 East 43rd Street in Baltimore City, Maryland, having suffered multiple gun shot wounds
. He was discovered by his daughter, Deneen Woods, and his grandson, Ricardo McDonald.
Woods testified at trial that she had seen [Armstead], also known as "Muggs," on the block on prior occasions with [Jamal] Fulton, who she knew as "Nube," and with Trendon and Tremaine Washington, twin brothers, both of whom she knew as "Twin." Fulton lived in the house next door, 500 East 43rd Street. Drugs were a "big problem" with Fulton. On the Friday before Woods's father was murdered, Fulton came to 502 East 43rd Street and argued with Paige. Fulton told Woods that her father was "making his spot hot." Woods responded by telling Fulton that she did not want any drugs to be around her father, and Fulton replied that "he would not say nothing else to [her] dad."
, and the manner of death was homicide. He could not pinpoint the exact time of death.
After the State rested, defense counsel called Fulton. Fulton testified that he knew [Armstead] and that he knew him by the name of "Muggs."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. State
... ... Stabb , 423 Md. at 472, 31 A.3d at 932. In Robinson , the next most recent appellate decision (before State v. Armstead , 235 Md. App. 392, 178 A.3d 556 (2018) ) addressing significantly a CSI effect message situation, the Court held that the trial court's anti-CSI effect instruction was not warranted by the trial record. Robinson , 436 Md. at 580, 84 A.3d at 81. During opening statement and closing argument, ... ...
-
McGhee v. State
... ... See Charles , 414 Md. at 733, 997 A.2d 154. In 2018, the Court of Special Appeals considered a CSI-effect voir dire question in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 284 A.3d 785 State v. Armstead , 235 Md. App. 392, 178 A.3d 556 (2018). After reflecting on Evans , Charles , Atkins , and Stabb , the intermediate appellate court concluded that trial counsel's failure to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The Armstead Court ... ...
-
State v. Christian
... ... Stabb [ v ... State ], 423 Md. [454,] 473 [(2011)] (to the extent that such an instruction is requested, its use ought to be confined to situations where it responds to correct pre-existing overreaches by the defense, i.e., a curative instruction." State v ... Armstead , 235 Md. App. 392, 414, cert ... denied , 459 Md. 172 (2018). During jury selection at Christian's trial, the court asked the following question: Is there any member of this panel who believes that the State can only prove its case through the use of scientific or forensic evidence such as, but ... ...
-
McGhee v. State
... ... See ... Charles , 414 Md. at 733 ... In ... 2018, the Court of Special Appeals considered a CSI-effect ... voir dire question in the context of an ineffective ... assistance of counsel claim. State v. Armstead , 235 ... Md.App. 392 (2018). After reflecting on Evans , ... Charles , Atkins , and Stabb , the ... intermediate appellate court concluded that trial ... counsel's failure to object to a CSI-effect voir dire ... question did not amount to ineffective assistance of ... ...