Streater v. State, No. 717

• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: EYLER
• Citation: 119 Md.App. 267,704 A.2d 541
• Docket Number: No. 717
• Decision Date: 01 September 1997
• Parties: Roderick V. STREATER v. STATE of Maryland. ,

Page 267

119 Md.App. 267 704 A.2d 541 Roderick V. STREATER
v.
STATE of Maryland. No. 717, Sept. Term, 1997. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Jan. 14, 1998.

[704 A.2d 542]

Page 270

Daniel H. Weiss, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.

Diane Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Patricia Jessamy, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Argued before DAVIS, HOLLANDER and EYLER, JJ.

EYLER, Judge.

Appellant, Roderick V. Streater, was convicted by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of stalking, harassment, and telephone misuse. Appellant was sentenced to three years incarceration for stalking, two years consecutive for telephone misuse, and ninety days concurrent for harassment. Perceiving no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

Appellant and Tawanda Bailey Streater were married but separated in November 1995, when Ms. Streater obtained a protective order from the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. The order provided that appellant "shall not contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means), attempt to contact or harass [Ms. Streater]." The order was in effect in April and May, 1996, when the conduct at issue in this case occurred.

Page 271

At trial, Ms. Streater testified that, despite the protective order, appellant repeatedly called her on the phone, both at home and at work, and knocked on her door. She answered over ten calls, but there were many more calls, at home and at work, when messages were taken by other persons. In addition, there were three face-to-face encounters. The first encounter occurred on April 5, 1996, when Ms. Streater noticed appellant outside her building as she left work. The second encounter occurred on May 9, 1996, when appellant approached Ms. Streater outside of the building in which she worked and said "Tawanda." The third occasion was on May 10, 1996, when appellant again approached Ms. Streater outside of the building [704 A.2d 543] in which she worked and said "Tawanda, come here."

The defense offered no evidence. Defense counsel stated in opening statement that appellant lacked the intent to commit the crime and that appellant's purpose in contacting Ms. Streater was to resolve the issue of a jointly owned motor vehicle and out of his concern about Ms. Streater's "horrendous behavior."

Questions Presented

Appellant presents three questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err by admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence of other crimes?

2. Did the trial court err by limiting cross-examination of the key State's witness?

3. Was the evidence legally insufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for stalking?

Discussion

I.

On direct examination, Ms. Streater testified that she had asked appellant to discontinue contacting her and that she had obtained a protective order. Appellant objected to the order on the stated ground of lack of relevance and the objection

Page 272

was overruled. The protective order itself was admitted into evidence in its entirety.

On appeal, appellant argues that, while the order may have been relevant to establish that appellant had been given notice to stay away from Ms. Streater, no evidence was introduced to show that appellant had notice of the protective order. Additionally, appellant argues that a portion of the order was inadmissible because it contained evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts. Specifically, the protective order had a checkmark in the box beside printed matter which read as follows: "Act(s) which placed Person Eligible for Relief in fear of imminent serious bodily harm." In addition, the following comment appeared in handwriting after that printed language: "[Appellant] threatened to harm [Ms. Streater], he broke into the house and took her money." Finally, the protective order had a checkmark in the box labeled "Battery or Assault and Battery."

The State argues that appellant's objection to the reference to other crimes or prior bad acts is not preserved for our review because he did not object to Ms. Streater's testimony that she had obtained a protective order and because he objected to the protective order solely on the ground of "relevancy."

In our view,...