State v. Sewell
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 20, Sept. Term, 2018,20, Sept. Term, 2018 |
| Citation | 205 A.3d 966,463 Md. 291 |
| Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Kevin SEWELL |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Peter R. Naugle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Erin C. Murphy (Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene,* Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
It is a fundamental rule of law that the public has a right to every persons' evidence. There are a small number of constitutional, common-law and statutory exceptions to that general rule, but they have been neither "lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth."
Ashford v. State , 147 Md. App. 1, 63, 807 A.2d 732 (2002) (Moylan, J.) (emphasis removed) (quoting In re Cueto , 554 F.2d 14, 15 (2d Cir. 1977) ). These exceptions are commonly known as privileges. This case asks us to balance the search for truth against one of the strongest privileges—confidential marital communications.
We weigh the introduction of evidence that tends to implicate child abuse against the protection of the confidential marital communications privilege. In so doing, we resolve the two questions presented: (1) whether this Court should adopt a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege, and (2) whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Kevin Sewell sent to his wife's cell phone. As to the first question, we agree with the State that courts should narrowly construe privileges, including the marital communications privilege. As to the second, we affirm the trial court's decision to admit the text messages, although we diverge from its rationale.
Three-year-old Luke Hill lived with his mother, Victoria Harmon, and her fiancé, Nick Miller, in Keller, Virginia. Luke was a happy, healthy little boy who enjoyed running around, playing outside, and driving his toy Jeep. In late April, Luke went to his pediatrician for a wellness check, and the doctor told his mother that he was "perfectly fine." Approximately one week later, Luke's mother and Nick left Luke in the care of Amanda and Kevin Sewell ("Amanda" and "Kevin," respectively), his aunt and uncle, so that they could enjoy a night out. They arrived at Amanda and Kevin's house in Pocomoke City, Maryland around 3:00 p.m. and visited for a short time, during which Luke and his cousin were running, playing, and wrestling. When Victoria and Nick departed for Salisbury, Kevin was holding Luke.
Kevin played with the boys until around 5:00 p.m. They all ate eggs and bacon for dinner, and afterward, Amanda gave Luke a bath. She testified that during Luke's bath, she noticed, for the first time, that he had "[a] lot" of bruises, including bruising behind his ears, down his neck, on his chest, arms, and legs. He also had black eyes and a knot on his head. Amanda testified that she called Victoria and told her about the bruises behind his ears and that Luke was not feeling well.
Amanda woke up around 5:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, May 3, to get ready for her shift at a nearby restaurant. Luke and his cousin woke shortly thereafter, and Amanda made them breakfast. She departed for work around 6:45 a.m., leaving the children in Kevin's care.
Beginning around 9:00 a.m., Amanda and Kevin sent a series of text messages to each other.1
Amanda testified that when she got home from work on the afternoon of May 3, she went into her bedroom to change and saw Luke covered with a blanket, seemingly asleep. She further stated that without waking Luke, she put a diaper on him, changed his shorts, and Kevin put him in her car. While Amanda was driving Luke home, she and Kevin exchanged the following text messages:
When Amanda arrived at her sister's home, Victoria found Luke in a booster seat in the backseat hunched over. He was unresponsive, had a large bump on his head, had a bite mark on his arm, and was making a phlegmy sound while barely breathing. It was later discovered that Luke also had several other bruises. Nick took Luke out of the car, and Victoria called 911. Nick then went to get a neighbor who was an EMT.
Initially, Luke was transported by ambulance to Shore Memorial Hospital in Nassawadox, Virginia but, given the grave nature of his condition, he was promptly transported by helicopter to King's Daughters Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. Luke was taken into surgery immediately upon arrival. He never regained consciousness. Luke died on Tuesday, May 5, 2015.
Kevin Sewell was charged with (1) first-degree murder, (2) first-degree child abuse, (3) second-degree murder, and (4) neglect of a minor. Amanda Sewell was also charged in the death of Luke, but was granted immunity by the State and compelled to testify.
Before trial, a hearing was held on defense counsel's motion in limine to exclude the text messages between Kevin and his wife while Luke was in his care. The basis for the motion was the marital communications privilege. The trial court denied the motion.
During the trial, the State moved into evidence screenshots of the text messages containing timestamps. Over defense counsel's continuing objection, the screenshots of the text messages were received in evidence as a State's exhibit. The text messages were also read into the record in a colloquy between Amanda and the State.
At trial, Dr. Suzanne Starling, the medical director of the child abuse program at the Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, testified that she examined Luke when he arrived at the hospital. She observed that "he was covered in bruises from head
to toe." She noted that Luke had multiple injuries, which included a large bruise on his stomach; bruises on both hips; bruises on his legs, arms, and underneath his armpit; several injuries across his chest; and "a very large bruise from his forehead up into his hair." On the left side of his face, he had a small cut underneath his eye, bruising on the front of his cheek, bruising across his jawbone, bruising inside his ear, bruising underneath his chin, and several bruises around his neck. Starling testified that Luke had similar injuries to the right side of his face. These injuries included "bruises all around his hairline, bruises all in front of his ear, and his right ear [was] really significantly bruised inside, and even swollen around the outside, and the bruises extend[ed] all the way down from his jawbone onto his neck." In addition, Luke "had a very large bite mark on his right shoulder," a bite mark on his left shoulder, and a bite mark on his left forearm. The doctor also testified that "the skin from the base of [Luke's] penis to the tip of his penis [had] been removed." Starling opined, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that "the bruises were inflicted," meaning "they didn't occur by accident." She determined that "a blow to the abdomen caused [Luke] to have abdomen trauma," and that he sustained abusive head trauma.
Starling concluded that the fatal injury did not occur until after breakfast on Sunday, May 3. She explained that Luke "would not be expected to eat normally" due to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, 436, Sept. Term, 2018
...any confidential communication between the spouses occurring during their marriage." CJP § 9-105. See generally State v. Sewell , 463 Md. 291, 205 A.3d 966 (2019).9 The footnote in Hagez also references contradictory authority, namely Lutwak v. United States , 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97......
-
Hamm v. State
...to the questions were sufficient to preserve any ground for objecting that could have existed at the time," and, citing State v. Sewell, 463 Md. 291, 318 n.8 (2019), that we could affirm the trial court for "any reason adequately shown by the record." 8. Md. Rule 5-611(b) provides:(b) Scope......
-
Wilson v. State, 436
...to disclose any confidential communication between the spouses occurring during their marriage." CJP § 9-105. See generally State v. Sewell, 463 Md. 291 (2019). 9. The footnote in Hagez also references contradictory authority, namely Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953), and Osborne......
-
People v. Bartlett
...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 confidential communication betw......