Sykes v. State
| Citation | 253 Md.App. 78,264 A.3d 222 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2132, Sept. Term, 2019,2132, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Parties | Brandon SYKES v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Min Kyung Jeon, Assigned Public Defender (Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, D. C., Paul B. De Wolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.
Argued by: Andrew J. Dimiceli (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Berger, Wells, Ripken, JJ.*
Ripken, J. Brandon Sykes ("Sykes") and Jessica Feldmeier ("Feldmeier") were arrested after police discovered packages of controlled dangerous substances ("CDS"), heroin and fentanyl, tucked between the driver and passenger seat of Feldmeier's car. Neither Feldmeier, the driver, nor Sykes, the passenger, claimed ownership of the drugs at the scene. During Sykes's arrest, police officers observed Sykes using a cell phone, which police later determined to have sent and received text messages concerning the sale of narcotics in the ten days prior to the arrest. At Sykes's trial and over his objection, the State introduced those text messages into evidence and called an expert in narcotics investigations to testify about the consistency of the messages and other evidence with patterns of drug distribution. A Talbot County jury convicted Sykes of possession of CDS with intent to distribute.
Sykes now appeals his conviction. According to Sykes, the court erred in admitting numerous text messages and in admitting the expert testimony. Sykes contends that the text messages and the expert testimony were crucial to the State proving his intent to distribute. We hold that the drug-related texts were not admitted in error, and the court acted within its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. We shall affirm.
On July 6, 2016, Officer Westerfield was patrolling in Easton, Talbot County, Maryland. He observed that a white 2007 Ford Crown Victoria had a malfunctioning rear light rendering the license plate illegible. At approximately 9:24 p.m., Officer Westerfield activated his emergency lights and pulled over the Crown Victoria. He observed Feldmeier in the driver's seat and Sykes in the front passenger seat. The officer explained the reason for the stop and asked for Feldmeier's license and registration. According to Officer Westerfield, Feldmeier's hands were visibly shaking and there was a shake in her voice. He subsequently asked for Sykes's identification. After returning to his patrol car, Officer Westerfield requested a K91 team to assist on the scene.
Officer Tindall responded with his K9, Meiko, and informed Feldmeier and Sykes that he was going to conduct a K9 scan of the vehicle. Meiko alerted2 at the driver's door, giving a signal indicating the presence of narcotics. Officer Westerfield called for additional backup and searched the vehicle.
Officer Chinn3 arrived on scene and stood with Sykes and Feldmeier while the vehicle was searched. Officer Westerfield discovered a plastic bag containing 84 packets of suspected narcotics.4 The larger bag contained 73 multicolored paper folds with a tan powdery material as well as 11 plastic baggies with a rock-like substance. He located the bag in between the passenger seat and either the center console or the gap between the passenger seat and the driver's seat, within reach of both seats. A field test of the substance returned a positive result for heroin. He informed Officer Chinn, who placed Sykes and Feldmeier under arrest.
Officer Chinn escorted Sykes to the patrol car and placed him in the back seat. While Sykes was in the back seat, Officer Chinn observed him remove a Samsung smart phone from his pocket, unlock it, place a call, and talk on the phone. Officer Chinn radioed Officer Westerfield, who approached and observed Sykes on the phone. Officer Westerfield seized the cell phone from Sykes. The officers also seized a cell phone from Feldmeier. Sykes and Feldmeier were both charged with possession of a CDS and possession of a CDS with intent to distribute. Each was within close proximity to the drugs but neither claimed possession at that time.5
The seized drugs were sent to the Maryland State Police Forensics Sciences Division for testing. The multicolored paper folds contained a mixture of heroin and fentanyl. The individual plastic baggies contained heroin.
The officers also applied for and obtained a search warrant for the cell phone that was taken from Sykes. Investigators downloaded the emails, text messages, social media conversations, and other data stored on the cell phone into an extraction report. The earliest extracted text messages dated back to 2012. The State created a printout with 691 text messages sent or received in the ten days prior to Sykes's arrest—between June 27, 2016 and July 6, 2016.
Sykes filed a motion in limine to exclude the data extracted from the cell phone arguing that the State failed to demonstrate authenticity, the text messages contained hearsay, and the text messages were irrelevant and prejudicial. At the initial pre-trial motions hearing, the court addressed the issue of authenticity in terms of the chain of custody of the cell phone and text messages. The court found that there was a sufficient foundation to conclude that the text messages extracted were from the cell phone that was taken from Sykes at the time of arrest. As to the defense's authenticity argument, the court denied the initial motion to exclude on that ground. However, the court reserved ruling on the hearsay, relevancy, and prejudice arguments.
Sykes later renewed the motion in limine presenting the same grounds as before, including authenticity. At the hearing addressing the motion in limine , Sykes's defense counsel again argued that the State should not be permitted to introduce the text messages at trial because the State did not establish Sykes's ownership of the phone or that he was the person making and receiving the text messages. Sykes's defense counsel further reiterated that the text messages were hearsay. The State argued that the phone was authenticated because it had been taken from Sykes's person, numerous email accounts accessed on the phone contained the name Brandon Sykes, and the officers on the scene who seized the phone as well as the officer who conducted the extraction of the text messages were available witnesses for the State. The State also argued that the text messages fell under numerous hearsay exceptions. The court denied the defense's motion to exclude the text messages.
Sykes's trial was held in February of 2018. The State called Officers Westerfield, Tindall, and Chinn to testify regarding the events leading up to and including Sykes's arrest. The parties stipulated that the text messages listed in the State's printout came from the phone that was seized from Sykes. The State moved to admit the full printout into evidence, and Sykes renewed his objection. The court noted the objection and admitted the printout. The State also called Sergeant Crouch, who was offered as an expert in field drug investigations and interdictions with expertise in drug paraphernalia, sales, and terminology.
The defense objected to Sergeant Crouch's testimony, arguing that the State had not disclosed the substance of Sergeant Crouch's findings and opinions or the summary of the grounds for those opinions in violation of Rule 4-263(8)(a). The State responded that it had sent a formal expert notification to the defense in July of the previous year. In the notification, the State named Sergeant Crouch and indicated that he was being offered as an expert in packaging, sales, street value, and narcotics terminology, and that he would testify as such. The State also specified that Sergeant Crouch would offer opinions as to whether the factual circumstances surrounding Sykes's arrest were indicative of personal use or distribution. Such opinions would be based, according to the State, on what he learned in court. The court overruled the defense's objection and accepted Sergeant Crouch as an expert in the field of drug investigations and interdiction.
Sergeant Crouch testified regarding numerous text messages, both incoming and outgoing, and gave his opinion that the contents of these messages were consistent with distribution. He also testified that the amount of drugs—the 84 packages of heroin and fentanyl—found in Feldmeier's car was consistent with quantities used for distribution.
After the State rested its case, the defense did not call any witnesses. The jury found Sykes guilty of possession of a CDS with the intent to distribute. Sykes was sentenced to 18 years of imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.6
Additional facts will be included as they become relevant to the issues.
Sykes presents two issues for review:7
I. Did the circuit court err in admitting the text messages extracted from the cell phone taken from Sykes's person at the time of arrest?
II. Did the circuit court err in allowing Sergeant Crouch to testify as an expert?
For the reasons discussed below, we hold that there was no error as to admission of the drug-related text messages, and no error as to admission of Sergeant Crouch's expert testimony interpreting such texts. We note that although there was error in the admission of the non-drug-related text messages, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We shall affirm.
Sykes contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the text messages in three respects: first, the phone and outgoing messages were not authenticated; second, the contents of the incoming and outgoing text messages were inadmissible hearsay; and third, the text messages were irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The State responds that the text messages were properly admitted. We address each of Sykes's contentions regarding the text...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swails v. State
... ... Jackson , 460 Md. at 116. "The ... burden of proof for authentication is slight, and the court ... need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the ... proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence ... that the jury ultimately do so." Sykes v ... State , 253 Md.App. 78, 91 (2021) (quoting Darling v ... State , 232 Md.App. 430, 455 (2017)) ... Here, ... the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the ... officers' testimony. The officers testified about what ... ...
-
Swails v. State
... ... Jackson , 460 Md. at 116. "The ... burden of proof for authentication is slight, and the court ... need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the ... proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence ... that the jury ultimately do so." Sykes v ... State , 253 Md.App. 78, 91 (2021) (quoting Darling v ... State , 232 Md.App. 430, 455 (2017)) ... Here, ... the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the ... officers' testimony. The officers testified about what ... ...
-
White v. State
... ... call, under Rule 5-901(b)(4). [ 22 ] To authenticate an item, the ... proponent must introduce evidence, direct or circumstantial, ... to show that the item is "more likely than not" ... what it purports to be. See, e.g. , Sykes v ... State , 253 Md.App. 78, 91 (2021); State v ... Sample , 468 Md. 560, 598-99 (2020). This burden is ... "slight." Jackson , 460 Md. at 116 ... To ... begin with, the familial relationship between Appellant and ... Darien White is ... ...
-
Brown v. State
... ... is made, the ultimate question of authenticity is left to the ... jury." Darling , 232 Md.App. at 456 ... Authentication ... may be shown through both direct and circumstantial ... evidence. [ 3 ] See Sykes v. State , 253 Md.App ... 78, 92, 94-95 (2021) (holding that defendant's arrest ... with large quantity of heroin and possession of phone from ... which text messages were sent were sufficient to authenticate ... authorship of outgoing messages pertaining to drug ... ...