State v. Thomas, 33, Sept. Term, 2018
Citation | 211 A.3d 274,464 Md. 133 |
Decision Date | 24 June 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 33, Sept. Term, 2018,33, Sept. Term, 2018 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Patrick Joseph THOMAS a/k/a Patrick Joseph Patrick |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Carrie J. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Marc A. DeSimone, Jr., Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Sally D. Adkins (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
The past twenty years have seen a dramatic increase in heroin use, abuse, and accessibility.1 Unsurprisingly, Maryland has experienced a correlating spike in heroin and opioid-related deaths.2 Our State, and Marylanders alike, seek tools to combat this epidemic. We are asked to consider under what circumstances the dangers of heroin would justify holding a dealer liable for involuntary manslaughter for supplying the means by which his customer fatally overdoses. The issue is fraught. The perception of an epidemic cannot solely dictate its legally recognized danger. As our role requires, we address the issue in the specific context of this sale of heroin to determine where the act falls on the continuum of culpability.
The question presented is at once straightforward and weighty: whether the evidence in the trial court was sufficient to sustain Patrick Joseph Thomas' ("Thomas") conviction for involuntary manslaughter. 3
We resolve this case in favor of Petitioner, holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Thomas of gross negligence involuntary manslaughter.
The State charged Thomas with three counts: distribution of heroin, reckless endangerment, and involuntary manslaughter. Thomas entered, what we have termed before, a "hybrid plea," wherein the parties "agree to the ultimate facts," while "maintain[ing] the ability to argue legal issues, as well as sufficiency." Bishop v. State , 417 Md. 1, 22, 7 A.3d 1074 (2010). "The State's proffer may not contain disputes of material fact, because the judge cannot resolve credibility issues on a mere proffer." Id. at 24, 7 A.3d 1074. These agreed factual findings were read into the record by the State's Attorney and are quoted at length below.
As an initial matter, Thomas objects to the State's citation of "at least ten journal articles, newspaper reports, and internet websites" to support its argument, because, he asserts, we are confined to the record "as presented to the lower court." Moreover, Thomas states that he "does not agree to the facts identified by the State" in its brief, particularly considering that they are not placed in the context of the time in which this incident occurred, 2015.
We agree with Thomas that newspaper articles—excepting those referenced in the agreed statement of facts—play no role in consideration of this case. Still, this Court is able to take judicial notice of facts "not subject to reasonable dispute" and "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Maryland Rule 5-201(b). We may take such notice on request or sua sponte , see id. 5-201(c), regarding a range of reliable scientific and historical data. See, e.g. , Faya v. Almaraz , 329 Md. 435, 445, 620 A.2d 327 (1993) ( ); B.N. v. K.K. , 312 Md. 135, 139–40, 538 A.2d 1175 (1988) ( ); Gillespie-Linton v. Miles , 58 Md. App. 484, 499, 473 A.2d 947 (1984) (life expectancy tables).
pills, which is a Schedule IV [CDS]. It was determined that Colton did not have a prescription for the tramadol pills and possibly had taken these pills, unknowingly, from his mother.
. Approximately two[-]and[-]a[-]half years ago Colton had overdosed after being released from a halfway house where he had become clean of opiates. Narcan, or naloxone, was administered, and he had survived that overdose. However, Koons advised that he continued to abuse heroin after that overdose.
In February of 2015[,] Colton moved out of the Pennsylvania area and into his mother's home in an attempt to isolate himself from the lifestyle of heroin abuse
in Pennsylvania....
[O]n June 25th[,] Colton had asked his mother to borrow her debit card. Tammy allowed Colton to have her debit card so that he could rent a couple of movies.
After his death, she checked her bank transactions. She observed that Colton had rented two movies and then withdrew $ 40 in U.S. currency. This $ 40 in U.S. currency was withdrawn at 11:59 in the evening on the 25th of June ....
On June 25th of 2015[,] at approximately 11:50[,] Koons woke up from her sleep and observed that Colton had her car keys.... He then left the residence....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Carrillo
...is a policy decision best addressed by the legislature rather than the judiciary."9 Id. at 664-665.Most recently, in State v. Thomas, 464 Md. 133, 140, 211 A.3d 274 (2019), the Court of Appeals of Maryland -- Maryland's highest court -- 483 Mass. 286 affirmed the defendant's conviction of i......
-
Beckwitt v. State
...which is "negligently doing some act lawful in itself"; and (3) "the negligent omission to perform a legal duty." State v. Thomas , 464 Md. 133, 152, 211 A.3d 274 (2019) (first quoting State v. Albrecht , 336 Md. 475, 499, 649 A.2d 336 (1994) ; and then quoting Mills v. State , 13 Md. Ap......
-
White v. State
...facts, and the court merely applies the law to the agreed upon facts. Bishop , 417 Md. at 21, 7 A.3d 1074. Accord State v. Thomas , 464 Md. 133, 140, 211 A.3d 274 (2019). By entering such a plea, the accused retains the right to argue legal issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence.......
-
Singh v. State
...and set forth in writing in the plea." Id.11 While this appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in State v. Thomas , 464 Md. 133, 211 A.3d 274 (2019). The Court held that, in some circumstances, evidence that the defendant sold heroin to a person who later died from an o......