Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 6 September Term, 2008.,6 September Term, 2008. |
| Citation | 407 Md. 137,963 A.2d 197 |
| Parties | Todd Tyrone TAYLOR v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Michael R. Braudes, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued Before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
We are called upon to address the confluence of Maryland Rule 5-608(b),1 which allows impeachment by examination regarding the witness's prior conduct but does not allow proof of the prior conduct by extrinsic evidence, and Maryland Rule 5-806,2 which allows the impeachment of a hearsay declarant "by any evidence which would be admissible ... if the declarant had testified as a witness."
Specifically, Todd Tyrone Taylor, Petitioner, was convicted of third degree sexual assault for engaging in anal intercourse with B.D., a 15 year-old boy, who did not testify at trial. B.D.'s version of events was presented through the testimony of the boy's father and a detective; others testified, although their testimony is not relevant here.3 During cross-examination of the father and Detective Deana Mackie, Taylor's counsel sought to impeach B.D.'s version of events, by eliciting from the father and detective that the story B.D. told about his encounter with Taylor was inconsistent, as well as that B.D. had lied about his prior sexual experience. The trial judge sustained the State's objections, determining that Rule 5-608(b) would be violated because of the rule's prohibition of extrinsic evidence.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unreported opinion, holding that the trial court did not err in curtailing B.D.'s impeachment, and, nevertheless, that if error had occurred, it was harmless. The court also declined to address a contention by Taylor that his probation order included an inappropriate condition, because the issue was not preserved for appeal. We granted certiorari, Taylor v. State, 404 Md. 152, 945 A.2d 1270 (2008), to consider two questions:
1. Did the trial court's restriction upon the impeachment of the credibility of a hearsay declarant whose extrajudicial statements were central to the State's case contravene Petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause and Maryland evidentiary law?
2. Did the trial court impose an overbroad condition of probation ordering Petitioner "to have no contact with any minors?"4
We shall hold the trial judge improperly applied the extrinsic evidence limitation in Rule 5-608(b), in violation of the defendant's right to cross-examine the father and detective, when he prevented Taylor from impeaching the veracity of the hearsay declarant and his version of events regarding the sexual encounter in issue. We shall affirm the conviction, however, because the error was harmless.
This case arises out of a sexual encounter between Taylor and B.D., a 15 year-old boy. On September 22, 2004, B.D.'s father, who was estranged from B.D.'s mother, arrived at the family home to take his son to a back-to-school event at the high school. Shortly after the father and son left the house, B.D.'s mother received a phone call from an individual who said that B.D.'s school planner had been found at the Silver Spring Metro Station, where B.D. did not frequent. After the mother and father questioned B.D. about why he was at the Metro Station and B.D. initially obfuscated, B.D. then admitted to a sexual encounter with a man, later identified as Todd Tyrone Taylor, in Taylor's apartment in Silver Spring that day, after B.D. had contact with Taylor on a chat line. After interviewing with Detective Mackie at the police station, B.D. was then referred to a hospital for a sexual assault examination, where he told a forensic nurse, Heidi Bresee, that he had had anal intercourse, and that he had engaged in fellatio; although there had not been any force, threats or weapons. Upon examination, Nurse Bresee observed an acute half-inch, exterior anal tear that she testified was consistent with anal intercourse. A DNA sample, taken by oral and anal swabbing and analyzed by a forensic scientist, matched that of Taylor.
Taylor was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of sexual offense in the third degree for engaging in anal penetration and fellatio,5 and one count of sexual offense in the fourth degree, which was nolle prossed.6 At trial, the State did not call B.D. to testify, instead relying on the testimony from the boy's father and that of Detective Mackie to present B.D.'s version of events.
B.D.'s father testified that B.D. related to him that he had met Taylor over the Internet in a chat room on the day in question, that B.D. had traveled to Silver Spring where he had gone to Taylor's apartment, and that once there, B.D. and Taylor had engaged in anal intercourse. The father also testified that when he had heard this, he had become enraged, grabbed B.D. by the throat and demanded that B.D. take him to Taylor's apartment, where he attempted to enter, but was deterred by a security guard and later by a police officer, who instructed him to go to the police station and meet with a detective there. The father then testified that he had taken B.D. to the police station where both he and B.D. were interviewed by Detective Mackie, followed by a forensic examination of B.D. by Nurse Bresee at Shady Grove Hospital. The father also testified that B.D. was crying and visibly shaken.
During cross-examination of the father, Taylor attempted to impeach B.D.'s version of events, on the basis of B.D.'s alleged fear of physical harm at the father's hand, and because B.D. allegedly had lied to his father about B.D.'s previous sexual experience. After eliciting that B.D. lied to the father about why his planner was in the Silver Spring Metro Station, the State objected to Taylor's questions eliciting whether B.D. had been forthcoming with his father about his prior sexual experience; the trial judge sustained these objections:
Taylor also sought to elicit additional testimony about whether B.D. previously had been candid with his father about his sex life:
Cross-examination continued:
After the completion of the father's testimony, there was a discussion at the bench concerning whether Taylor's counsel would be permitted to question Detective Mackie about B.D.'s general tendency to lie about his prior sexual activity and about specific statements that tended to show that B.D. had not been truthful with Mackie about his encounter with Taylor:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colkley v. State
...important to add that Appellant had other potential means of introducing Waddell's prior conviction which Appellant did not pursue. In Taylor v. State , the Court of Appeals noted alternative means of impeaching an unavailable witness:[T]he unavailability of the declarant will not always fo......
-
Alston v. State Of Md.
...408 Md. 204, 229, 969 A.2d 262, 276 (2009); Tucker v. State, 407 Md. 368, 382-383, 965 A.2d 900, 908-909 (2009); Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 164-165, 963 A.2d 197, 213 (2009); Hutchinson v. State, 406 Md. 219, 227, 958 A.2d 284, 288 (2008), and cases there cited. In the present case we ar......
-
Muscolino v. State
...were introduced, that any error in the admission of this bit of testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 164-65 (2009), the Court of Appeals said:We recently addressed the application of the harmless error rule in Bellamy v. State, 403 Md. 308, 332-......
-
Carlini v. State
...have been imposed, the criminal defendant is entitled to relief under Rule 4–345(a).(Emphasis supplied). See also Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 141 n. 4, 963 A.2d 197 (2009) (“[A] motion to correct an illegal sentence is entertained ... where ... the sentence never should have been imposed.......
-
Sentencing Motions
...formula to determine which sentences are illegal within the meaning of Rule 4-345(a) . . . . 427 Md. at 367-68. See also Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 141 n.4 (2009); Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460, 466 (2007); Pollard v. State, 394 Md. 40, 42 (2006); State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 273 (2006)......
-
Discovery Under Maryland Rules
...a witness did not pass a polygraph exam; and (g) the failure of the witness to identify the defendant or co-defendant. In Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 164 (2009), the Court of Appeals held that, under Md. Rule 5-608(b), the victim's untruthfulness about earlier sexual allegations against o......
-
Courtroom Confrontation
...confidential informant in prison, even if the conversation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 161, 166-67 (2009), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court's restriction on the defendant's impeachment of a non-testifying hearsay ......