Tate v. State
| Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1734-2021 |
| Parties | JABARI JAHI TATE v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CT201240X
Kehoe Beachley, Kenny, James A, III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Jabari Jahi Tate, appellant, was convicted of reckless endangerment and unlawfully wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person and in a vehicle based on evidence that he fired a handgun close to three individuals during an altercation. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment because the State did not produce evidence that the gun was operable, that Tate fired the gun or that he did so in a manner that posed a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to others. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
While driving with his then-girlfriend, Maria Ramos, Tate stopped at a red light behind another car driven by Jessma Avilez-Valdez with Nailea Torres-Bautista in the passenger seat and Jonathan Carrmona and Torres-Bautista's infant in the backseat. When the light turned green, Avilez-Valdez didn't move, so Tate honked his horn. In response, Avilez-Valdez started forward. But then Tate pulled his car up next to Avilez-Valdez's, and the two began arguing.
Shortly thereafter, Tate and Avilez-Valdez pulled into the entrance of a parking lot to fight. Tate then reached into his bookbag, pulled out a gun, and aimed it at Avilez-Valdez's car. At trial, Torres-Bautista testified that no one in Avilez-Valdez's car had any weapons, so they decided not to fight and attempted to drive away. But Tate blocked their escape by pulling his car in front of Avilez-Valdez's. Tate then got out of his car, approached Avilez-Valdez with his hand on the gun he had placed back inside his bookbag, and punched Avilez-Valdez in the face.
Seeing this, Ramos and Torres-Bautista got out of their cars and started their own fight. Both Ramos and Torres-Bautista testified that they heard multiple gun shots. Neither one saw the source of the shots, but Torres-Bautista testified that they left her ears ringing. Ramos testified she did not have a gun at the scene. No one was hit, but the gunfire quickly disbursed the combatants.
To convict Tate of reckless endangerment, the State had to prove that: (1) he engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another; (2) a reasonable person would not have engaged in that conduct; and (3) he acted recklessly. Jones v. State, 357 Md 408, 427 (2000). Because this case involved a firearm, the State also had to prove it was operable. Thompson v. State, 229 Md.App. 385, 415 (2016).
In reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Tate, we must "determine 'whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of [reckless endangerment] beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Williams v. State, 251 Md.App. 523, 569 (2021) (emphasis in original) (quoting Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 452, 457 (1997)). Put differently, "the limited question before us is not 'whether the evidence should have or probably would have persuaded [most] fact finders but only whether it possibly could have persuaded any rational fact finder.'" Smith v. State, 232 Md.App. 583, 594 (2017) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Allen v. State, 158 Md.App. 194, 249 (2004)). We conduct our review "keeping in mind our role of reviewing not only the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, but also all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence" in the same light. Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174, 185-86 (2010).
When assessing sufficiency, we do not discriminate between direct and circumstantial evidence. Williams, 251 Md.App. at 569. That said, circumstantial evidence must do more than just arouse suspicion and leave room for conjecture; it cannot require the jury to resort to "blind or haphazard speculation." Cerrato-Molina v. State, 223 Md.App. 329, 333 (2015). See also Smith, 415 Md. at 185. The distinction between when circumstantial evidence leads to reasonable inferences versus improper speculation is the heart of this case.
We first address whether the jury could have reasonably inferred that Tate fired the shots from his gun. Tate argues that since there was no "testimony as to what was happening at the time [ ] the witnesses heard the gun fire, the jury may have speculated that" the shots came from Tate's gun. Put another way, Tate's argument is that because there was no direct evidence he fired the gun, a jury could have concluded the shots came from someone else's gun-i.e., another inference was possible-therefore no rational jury could have inferred they came from his. But choosing between these inferences is...
To continue reading
Request your trial