State v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 40, Sept. Term, 2018,40, Sept. Term, 2018 |
| Citation | 463 Md. 342,205 A.3d 995 |
| Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Harry Malik ROBERTSON |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Virginia S. Hovermill, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Renee McDonald Hutchins, Assigned Public Defender (University of Maryland Carey School of Law and Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Alan M. Wilner (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
Hotten, J.Harry Malik Robertson ("Robertson") was involved in an altercation at a residential area near Morgan State University. The incident culminated in the stabbing death of one of its participants. A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found Robertson guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, but acquitted him of first- and second-degree murder and of carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court erred in permitting the State to question Robertson regarding his participation in a previous, unrelated incident during which a knife had been brandished ("previous incident"), because the door had not been opened for questioning by the State. The Court of Special Appeals also held that, because the introduction of the previous incident was not harmless error, Robertson's conviction for accessory after the fact must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. On appeal, the State presents the following questions for our review:
For reasons discussed infra , we find that application of whether particular evidence may be admitted based on the legal principle of "opening the door" is reviewed de novo . We further conclude that defense counsel opened the door, thereby enabling the State to question Robertson regarding the previous incident. However, despite the application of the open door doctrine, the State used the evidence of Robertson's participation in the prior incident in a manner that exceeded the scope of the doctrine. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of February 1, 2016, Robertson, then a student at Coppin State University, was involved in an altercation between two groups of men near the Morgan State University campus. The fight concluded after one of the participants, Gerald Williams ("the decedent"), was stabbed and ultimately died from his wounds
.
The impetus for the fight began nearly a week earlier. Daequon Gordon, a Prince George's Community College student, purchased ten dollars' worth of marijuana from Brandon Parker, a Morgan State University student. Gordon purchased the marijuana with a counterfeit fifty-dollar bill and received the marijuana and forty dollars in return.
When Parker learned that the fifty-dollar bill was counterfeit, he contacted Gordon and demanded his money back. A meeting was arranged, and both Parker and Gordon showed up to the meeting with friends. Among them was the decedent, who was one of Gordon's friends, and Robertson, who was one of Parker's friends. The subsequent details were in dispute at trial.
Gordon, testifying for the State, contended that when the two groups met that evening, he told Parker, Gordon then punched Parker, provoking a larger fight among the group. As Robertson and others ran from the area, the decedent collapsed and Gordon, observing that the decedent was bleeding, called an ambulance.
Another State witness, Isaiah McClin, who fought as part of the decedent's group, testified that "all hell broke loose" after the groups met, and though he did not recall who was fighting, he heard the decedent yell something during the fight, shortly after which the fight abruptly ended. Thereafter, McClin observed the decedent lying on the ground and "bleeding out." Although McClin did not see the stabbing, or observe Respondent in possession of a weapon, he recalled Robertson and the decedent fighting at some point.
D'ana Glenn, another witness for the State, testified that she observed the altercation and never saw a large group fighting with each other. Rather, Glenn testified, only Robertson and the decedent were fighting. She stated that she saw the decedent charge towards Robertson, and Robertson, in an effort to "push forward toward him," stabbed the decedent. Upon further examination, Glenn conceded that her view of Robertson was not "that clear" and that she only saw Robertson holding a knife after "[he] and the decedent ‘impact[ed].’ "
Robertson denied stabbing the decedent and further denied having a knife. He contended that he fought two men during the fight: Mathew Agogo and McClin. Robertson also testified that he heard the decedent say "I'm bleeding."
Robertson testified that after the men dispersed, he told his cousin, Ron, who was also engaged in the fight, that they should leave. Robertson got into Ron's car along with four of their friends. One of the friends was Abayomi Akinwold.
During the drive, Robertson testified that Akinwold was "beating himself up" and had blood on his hand and jacket. At one point, the car stopped, Akinwold exited, and tossed a knife into a storm drain. The car subsequently stopped at a friend's home, which Akinwold entered. When Akinwold returned to the car moments later, his hands were clean. Ron drove the friends to their respective homes, leaving Robertson at his mother's house.
Following his arrest, Robertson was detained at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center. James Alston, who was also detained at the facility on a probation violation, testified that Robertson admitted that he had killed someone during a fight. Alston denied receiving anything in exchange for his testimony, but admitted that his probation violation had been dropped prior to Robertson's trial.
Proceeding in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
At the beginning of the trial, Robertson faced charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and carrying a dangerous weapon openly with intent to injure. At the end of Robertson's case, at the suggestion of the court and with agreement from counsel, an accessory after the fact charge was added. The jury subsequently found Robertson guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, but acquitted him of the remaining charges.
At trial, the following colloquy occurred between Robertson and his counsel during direct examination:
During cross-examination, the State inquired about Robertson's participation in a previous, unrelated incident.1 Defense counsel objected, and a bench conference ensued.2 Based on defense counsel's questioning during Robertson's direct examination, the trial judge asserted that defense counsel had opened the door to enable the State to inquire about the previous incident.
Proceeding before the Court of Special Appeals
Robertson raised two issues on appeal:
The Court of Special Appeals held that defense counsel had not opened the door for the State to introduce the previous knife incident because defense counsel had limited his questioning to Robertson's criminal and juvenile record. Because defense counsel's questioning was limited in scope, Robertson had "opened the door, at most, to being cross-examined ... as to his claim that he had never been previously involved with the justice system, as either an adult or juvenile[.]" Robertson v. State of Maryland , No. 2731, slip op. at 8 (Md. App. June 6, 2018). The Court held that, because the introduction of the previous incident was not harmless error, Robertson's conviction for accessory after the fact must be vacated and remanded for a new trial ("Given the similarity of the earlier incident ... we cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the decision to permit inquiry about the previous incident was harmless error."). Id. at 11.
Regarding the second issue, the Court held that Robertson had not preserved his insufficiency claim and declined to review the issue for plain error.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hopkins v. State , 352 Md. 146, 158, 721 A.2d 231, 237 (1998). Errors of law and purely legal questions are reviewed de novo and this Court affords no deference to the decision of the court below. Schisler v. State , 394 Md. 519, 535, 907 A.2d 175, 184 (2006).
The discussion provided in Section III.A. below concludes that this Court should review the trial court's ruling that defense counsel opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence de novo .
DISCUSSION
The open door doctrine is based on principles of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battle v. State
...otherwise would have been irrelevant in order to respond to ... admissible evidence which generates an issue.’ " State v. Robertson , 463 Md. 342, 352, 205 A.3d 995 (2019) (quoting Clark v. State , 332 Md. 77, 84, 629 A.2d 1239 (1993) ). "In short, the doctrine ‘makes relevant what was irre......
-
Williams v. State
...unfairly prejudicial. Courts review de novo the question of whether a party opened the door to rebuttal evidence. State v. Robertson , 463 Md. 342, 353, 205 A.3d 995 (2019). "A secondary inquiry regarding the proportionality of a party's rebuttal evidence is a separate issue that we review ......
-
O'Sullivan v. State
..."in the light most favorable to the prosecution." Id. at 533, 823 A.2d 664. We review questions of law de novo. State v. Robertson , 463 Md. 342, 358, 205 A.3d 995 (2019).IIIDiscussionA. Maryland Shall Retain the Two-Witness Rule. We first consider the State's cross-petition, in which the S......
-
In re J.H.
...has "opened the door" is a legal one, considering that the open door doctrine is a "rule of expanded relevance." State v. Robertson , 463 Md. 342, 352, 205 A.3d 995 (2019) (quoting Clark v. State , 332 Md. 77, 85, 629 A.2d 1239 (1993) ). Therefore, "this Court reviews the question of whethe......