Ward v. State

Decision Date29 January 2015
Docket NumberNo. 2171, Sept. Term, 2012.,2171, Sept. Term, 2012.
Citation221 Md.App. 146,108 A.3d 507
PartiesGary WARD v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Renee Hutchins (University of Maryland School of Law, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Jessica V. Carter (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: MEREDITH, WOODWARD, SHARER, J. FREDERICK (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.



In October 1993, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Gary Ward, appellant, of first degree murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. See State v. Ward, 350 Md. 372, 374–75, 712 A.2d 534 (1998). Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder and a consecutive term of five years' imprisonment for the handgun offense.

On January 4, 2012, appellant filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence pursuant to Maryland Code (2001, 2005 Repl. Vol., 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”), § 8–301. Appellant asserted that the State's case against him placed substantial reliance upon expert testimony regarding comparative bullet lead analysis (“CBLA”), and appellant argued that his conviction should be vacated because of scientific studies published in 2002 and 2004 that criticized the use of CBLA in criminal trials.1 Moreover, appellant argued that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)—the only lab in the United States that performed CBLA tests—had discontinued CBLA comparisons in 2005, and the Court of Appeals had declared such testimony inadmissible in 2006 in Clemons v. State, 392 Md. 339, 896 A.2d 1059 (2006). Appellant argued that the new scientific findings about the conclusions that could be reasonably supported by CBLA constituted newly discovered evidence that supported the issuance of a writ of actual innocence granting a new trial pursuant to CP § 8–301. Following a June 14, 2012, hearing, the circuit court denied the petition, and filed a written opinion and order on November 28, 2012. Appellant noted this appeal. While the present appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals considered another case in which the prosecution had relied on expert testimony regarding CBLA, and the Court of Appeals granted a new trial in that case as a consequence of issues regarding the CBLA evidence. Kulbicki v. State, 440 Md. 33, 99 A.3d 730 (2014), reconsideration denied, id.


Appellant presents one issue for our review:

Did the lower court err by failing to recognize that national scientific studies, released in 2002 and 2004, followed by the FBI's official rejection and discontinuation of comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA) in 2005 constitute newly discovered evidence under [CP] § 8–301 ?

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the court erred in ruling that the reports were not newly discovered evidence. We vacate the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case for further consideration in light of the Court of Appeals's opinion in Kulbicki.


At approximately 11:30 p.m. on September 30, 1992, Alfred Stewart was shot to death in the 1400 block of Cliftview Avenue in Baltimore.2

Ward, supra, 350 Md. at 374, 712 A.2d 534. In the following days, anonymous callers reported to police that appellant had murdered Stewart. Id. at 374, 712 A.2d 534. On October 3, police questioned appellant. Id. Although appellant was not charged with the murder at that point, the police impounded appellant's vehicle due to expired tags.Id. After a witness identified appellant from a photographic array as Stewart's killer, police obtained a warrant to search appellant's home and vehicle. Id. Police recovered three .357 caliber “MAG” hollow point cartridges from the trunk of the vehicle. Id. The murder weapon was never found. Appellant was charged with first degree murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Id.

The circuit court conducted a jury trial in October 1993, with the Honorable Elsbeth Bothe presiding. At trial, the State presented CBLA evidence in an effort to link the bullet fragments found in Stewart's body to the unfired cartridges recovered from appellant's vehicle. In the prosecutor's opening statement, he told the jury that the FBI analysis would show that the bullet that killed Stewart “came from the same lot as those bullets that were found in defendant's car, the same exact make of bullets from the same lot.” An FBI agent, Ernest Peele, testified that the composition of the fragments was the same as that of the bullets from appellant's car. The agent stated: “It has the same amount of all the elements present and as such it is consistent with coming from the same source of ammunition.”

Agent Peele's testimony about CBLA included the following assertions:

If comparing two pieces [of bullets] and they have the same composition, the reasonable place to expect that they originated would be from the same homogenous source.
For instance, they could be from the same piece. They could be from the same bullet if you were to take any two small pieces.
The next reasonable place would be via the manufacturer's packaging process, would be the same box of ammunition. That would be the reasonable place or source of determination to occur.
And then it is possible the same type, the same manufacturer packaged on or about the same date because obviously the source could be larger than what would be used in a box.

(Emphasis added.)

During closing arguments at appellant's trial, the prosecutor argued to the jury that, based upon Agent Peele's CBLA testimony, they could find a connection between appellant and the bullets taken from Stewart's body:

We also know that the bullets were recovered from Alfred [Stewart]'s body match the cartridges, which means the bullet and the casing that it was in, that was found where? In the Defendant's car. That's a little bit more than coincident, ladies and gentlemen, in light of the fact that you have also have an eyewitness testimony. Got some strong evidence in this case.

The prosecutor emphasized the connection that had been proved by the CBLA evidence which purportedly showed that the bullets that killed Stewart came from the same box as the bullets found in appellant's car. The prosecutor stated:

This stuff was found right inside the trunk. A box of Winchester Super–X cartridges, silver tip, 357 magnum. Just so happens that the same kind of cartridges that were found. Just so happens that they are consistent with the bullets that are recovered from Al [Stewart]. In fact, not only consistent, but they match. They match from the same source. They came from the same box.
... The testimony of the ballistics experts in here may have, on first blush, appeared to be complicated, but one thing that we know that there was a connection between Al [Stewart]'s murder weapon and the bullet that killed him, and what was found in the Defendant's car. That's a fact. That's a fact.

(Emphasis added.)

The State also presented the testimony of Mohammed Taylor, who was familiar with both appellant and Stewart. Taylor testified that, around midnight on September 30, 1992, he saw appellant and Stewart arguing about drugs which Stewart had recently purchased from appellant. A short time after that, Taylor stated, he heard a gunshot, and he turned around. He testified that he heard two more gunshots and saw Stewart on the ground, and saw appellant running away, holding a gun. Taylor later identified appellant in a photo array.

Alan Wise also testified for the State. At the time of trial, Wise was serving a sentence for an unrelated charge. Wise stated that he had known appellant for a long time. Wise testified that he witnessed appellant fire a silver gun during an unrelated incident that occurred on September 17, 1992. Additionally, Wise stated that, shortly before the September 30 shooting of Stewart, appellant told Wise that he needed money and that he “don't want to have to put the gun to nobody mouth....” Wise testified that he was in the vicinity of the September 30 shooting and heard gunshots, but he did not see anything. Appellant represents in his brief: “Wise has since recanted his testimony in postconviction proceedings [in 2003, at which time Wise testified] that his identification of Gary Ward as the shooter at the earlier incident was a lie.” (The State points out, however, that the postconviction judge discounted Wise's recantation as not being credible.)

At appellant's trial, the State also presented expert ballistics testimony that the bullets recovered from the September 17 shooting were fired by the same caliber of gun as the bullet fragments found in Stewart's body.

Everett Johnson, who lived in the neighborhood and had known appellant for seven years at the time of the shooting, testified on behalf of appellant. Johnson stated that, on the night of September 30, he was talking on the phone when he heard gunshots. He went outside and saw a man standing over another man. Johnson stated that the standing man turned, saw him, and departed. Johnson testified that he did not know the man he saw standing over the body, but it was not appellant. Although Johnson observed the unknown man standing over Stewart's body within seconds after hearing the shots fired, Johnson acknowledged that he did not see the shooting.

Appellant's mother and stepfather both testified that appellant was at home watching television at the time of the shooting. Appellant also testified in his case and he denied shooting Stewart. Appellant admitted asking Stewart for money, but denied threatening him. Appellant testified that he had permitted other people to drive his car and did not know anything about the bullets found in the trunk. Appellant professed his innocence, and testified as follows:

Q. [DEFENSE COUNSEL] Sir, you know that you're charged with shooting Mr. [Stewart].
A. [GARY WARD] Yes, sir.
Q. Did you in fact shoot Mr. [Stewart] on September the 30th, 1992?

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 26, 2017
    ...to Ty Brooks constitutes newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence. See Ward v. State , 221 Md.App. 146, 163, 108 A.3d 507 (2015) (newly discovered evidence can include new testing methods that did not exist at trial and are used to test evidence intro......
  • Snead v. State, 665, Sept. Term, 2014.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 30, 2015
    ...court denies the petition after a hearing, the appellate court reviews that decision for abuse of discretion. See Ward v. State, 221 Md.App. 146, 156, 108 A.3d 507 (2015) ; Yonga v. State, 221 Md.App. 45, 56, 108 A.3d 448cert. granted, 442 Md. 515, 113 A.3d 624 (2015) ; Seward, 220 Md.App. ......
  • Patterson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 27, 2016
    ...would have resulted in a different outcome had he been able to present them at his initial trial in 1993. Compare Ward v. State , 221 Md.App. 146, 167–70, 108 A.3d 507 (2015) (vacating denial of a petition for writ of actual innocence, where newly-discovered evidence would have prevented ex......
  • State v. Ebb
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 24, 2017
    ..."[w]here petitions were dismissed, it was for more substantive violations of other requirements." Id. (citing Ward v. State , 221 Md.App. 146, 168–70, 108 A.3d 507, 520–21 (2015) ; Yonga v. State , 221 Md.App. 45, 64, 108 A.3d 448, 459 (2015), [aff'd 446 Md. 183, 130 A.3d 486 (2016) ]; Jack......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT