State v. Hines
Decision Date | 10 November 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 4, Sept. Term, 2016,4, Sept. Term, 2016 |
Citation | 450 Md. 352,148 A.3d 1247 |
Parties | State of Maryland v. Tevin Hines |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Robert Taylor Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Celia Anderson Davis, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
This case involves a joint criminal trial of two codefendants. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied Respondent Tevin Hines' motion for a severance in the trial of State v. Dorrien Allen (“Allen”) and Tevin Hines (“Hines”). Hines argues that this was error because he was prejudiced by the admission into evidence of a statement made by Allen, which was inadmissible against Hines. At issue in this case is a question that this Court has never squarely addressed: the application of the offense joinder analysis set forth in McKnight v. State , 280 Md. 604, 612, 375 A.2d 551, 556 (1977) in the context of defendant joinder. We agree with Petitioner, the State of Maryland, that generally, where most of the evidence admissible at trial is mutually admissible, a joinder of defendants will be proper. However, where joinder will result in prejudice to one or more defendants, a trial judge has discretion under Maryland Rule 4–253 to grant a severance or order other relief as justice requires. Here, where non-mutually admissible evidence was actually admitted during a joint jury trial of codefendants and from the admission of that evidence, the objecting defendant was prejudiced, the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a severance. Because the statement that is inadmissible against Hines implicated him and therefore caused him to suffer unfair prejudice from the joinder, the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion for severance and a new trial is warranted.
On January 15, 2013, Brandon Gadsby and Michelle Adrian drove from Frederick County to Baltimore City to purchase heroin. Gadsby drove down Edmondson Avenue and the surrounding residential streets of West Baltimore until two young men, one in an orange jacket and another in a black beanie, waived Gadsby down. Gadsby later identified the men as Dorrien Allen and Tevin Hines. Gadsby testified that he pulled his truck over to the side of the street and Hines and Allen approached the vehicle and asked Gadsby, “Boy or Girl” meaning heroin or cocaine. Gadsby indicated that he wished to purchase heroin. According to Gadsby, Hines told Allen that he would meet him “over” there. Allen then got into Gadsby's vehicle and directed Gadsby to the 3900 block of Mulberry Street. When Gadsby parked his vehicle in a lot adjacent to a cemetery, Allen exited the vehicle and disappeared from view into a nearby alley. Allen then returned with Hines, but Hines remained in the alley while Allen walked over to Gadsby's vehicle. Gadsby testified to hearing Hines tell Allen, “not yet, not yet”, apparently referring to the fact that a garbage worker was nearby. After the garbage worker was out of sight, Allen pulled out a handgun and said, “don't fuckin' move.” Gadsby testified that he reached for his keys to start his truck and that Allen said, “are you trying to die?”, and then fired a gunshot that shattered the driver's side window. Gadsby said he then held out the $120 he intended to use to purchase heroin and told Allen to take whatever he wanted. Allen grabbed the money, exited the vehicle, and fired his gun multiple times, wounding Gadsby and killing Adrian. Gadsby testified that Allen fled through a hole in the cemetery fence.
On the same day as the shooting, Officer Kevin McLean of the Baltimore City Police Department was patrolling the area and saw Allen and Hines at the Normandy Food Market at approximately 9:30 a.m. Allen was wearing a bright orange jacket and Hines was dressed in black. Officer McLean was familiar with Allen and Hines based on his experience patrolling that area. About twenty minutes later, Officer McLean drove to a nearby convenience store and saw Allen and Hines. At 10:47 a.m., Officer McLean received a radio call reporting a shooting one block from Normandy Market and two blocks from the convenience store. Officer McLean responded to the scene whereupon Gadsby told Officer McLean he was shot by a black male wearing an orange jacket and blue jeans. Based on this information and on the fact that Officer McLean had seen Allen in the area earlier, he radioed that Dorrien Allen was a possible suspect.
Later on the same day, police saw Allen on the street and detained him for questioning. Allen was questioned by Detectives Fuller and Carew. This interview was recorded and offered as evidence by the State at trial. In the statement, Allen told police that on the day of the shooting, he remained home until around midday when he went to record a music video at his friend “Mike's” house. According to Allen's statement to the police, he did not know “Mike's” real name. Allen told police that “Mike” lives on the 300 block of Lyndhurst Avenue. The detectives then showed Allen a surveillance video of Allen at the convenience store during the time at which he claimed to have been home. The video, which was also shown to the jury at trial, shows Allen with a man who is clearly Hines. Allen admitted to detectives that he was in the video but claimed to not know who Hines was. Throughout the recorded interview, the detectives made statements of disbelief as to Allen's version of the events that took place on that day.1 Evidence was also admitted at trial that established Hines' address was 301 Lyndhurst Avenue.
Hines made a pretrial motion for severance, arguing that introduction of Allen's recorded statement would prejudice Hines. At the pretrial motions hearing, counsel for Hines articulated to the trial judge the exact prejudice that would—and did—ensue from the admission of Allen's statement at a joint trial:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Winston v. State
...single defendant unless the evidence as to each individual offense would be mutually admissible in separate trials. State v. Hines , 450 Md. 352, 371, 148 A.3d 1247 (2016). Based on the questionable premise that no evidence of the Ellis and McKelvin murders would have been mutually admissib......
-
Molina v. State
...discretion endowed by Rule 4-253(c).The Court of Appeals clarified the appropriate analysis for joinder and severance of defendants in State v. Hines :In the context of defendant joinder, the trial court must first determine whether non-mutually admissible evidence will be introduced and th......
-
State v. Zadeh
...filed a motion to reconsider the decision denying the motion to sever, in light of the decision by this Court in State v. Hines, 450 Md. 352, 148 A.3d 1247 (2016). The trial judge again denied the motion.At the suppression hearing in April 2016, the trial court denied the motion to suppress......
-
State v. Zadeh
...counsel filed a motion to reconsider the decision denying the motion to sever, in light of the decision by this Court in State v. Hines. 450 Md. 352, 148 A.3d 1247 (2016). The trial judge again denied the motion. At the suppression hearing in April 2016, the trial court denied the motion to......