Washington v. State
| Decision Date | 01 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1709 September Term, 2006.,1709 September Term, 2006. |
| Parties | Brandon WASHINGTON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Marc A. DeSimone, Jr. (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.
Beverly Peyton Griffith (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the Brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.
Panel: DAVIS, HOLLANDER, JJ., and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR., J. (Retired, Specially Assigned).
Following a trial held in June of 2006, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Brandon Washington, appellant, of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and wearing and carrying a handgun. See Md.Code (2003), § 5-101(g) and § 5-133 of the Public Safety Article ("P.S.") (possession of a firearm by a prohibited person); Md.Code (2002), § 4-203 of the Criminal Law Article ("C.L.") (wearing and carrying a handgun).1 The court subsequently sentenced appellant to a mandatory term of five years for the offense of firearm possession by a prohibited person, and to a concurrent three-year term for the wearing and carrying offense.
Appellant presents four questions, which we quote:
1. Did the trial court err in interrupting appellant's closing argument and precluding defense counsel from arguing a competing interpretation of the evidence to the jury because the judge "agreed with the State's interpretation" of one item of evidence?
2. Did the trial judge impermissibly usurp the jury's role as sole and exclusive triers of fact when she instructed the jury that they may not consider defense counsel's proffered interpretation of the evidence in any manner?
3. Whether the trial court committed plain error in allowing the State to cross-examine appellant through a series of "were they lying" questions[.]
4. Whether the trial court impermissibly limited the appellant's right to cross-examine his accusers[.]
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding appellant's closing argument. Therefore, we shall vacate the judgments of conviction and remand for further proceedings.
Between 10:30 p.m., and 11:30 p.m. on November 12, 2005, Officer Earl Thompson and Detective Fabien Laronde of the Baltimore City Police Department "FLEX Squad" received a call from a known, confidential source informing them of a suspect in the 400 Block of Lyndhurst3 Avenue in Baltimore City who was possibly armed with a handgun. In particular, Laronde testified that the officers "received a call for discharging in the area." Accordingly, Thompson and Laronde, accompanied by Officer Lash, drove to Lyndhurst Avenue, where they saw a suspect whom they later identified as appellant.
At the time, the officers were in plainclothes and in an unmarked vehicle. Nevertheless, appellant spotted them as they drove into the area. According to Officer Thompson, appellant "looked at [their] vehicle," started to walk away, and then began to run as they came near. Thompson explained that while the officers chased appellant in their car, appellant "made a gesture with his right arm as though he was throwing a metal object up into the air onto a roof in the block." Thompson also recalled that appellant traveled about 30 feet before the officers caught up with him. Laronde exited the car and apprehended appellant. With the aid of "Foxtrot," a police helicopter with a searchlight, the police located the suspicious object on the roof of a porch of an abandoned house. Laronde entered the building and retrieved the item — a fully loaded handgun. Appellant was arrested and, in a search of his person incident to that arrest, the police recovered a ziplock bag containing cocaine.
The police submitted the handgun for ballistics and fingerprint testing, and the State introduced the test results into evidence. In particular, State's Exhibit 1A is a "Firearms Identification Unit-Firearms Report," which contains a physical description of the firearm, including its make, model, serial number. The report also notes that the weapon was "test fired," found "operable," and meets the definition of a handgun. State's Exhibit 1B is the report from the police "Laboratory Section," titled "Request for Firearms Examination." The form contains appellant's name, as well as the make and model of the weapon and the date of processing for latent prints (11/29/05). Moreover, it indicates that the "Results" of the latent fingerprint test were "Negative."
Officer Thompson was examined about both reports. The following exchange is relevant:
* * *
I didn't put any gloves on that day.
(Emphasis added.)
The State did not call an expert witness to explain the process of gathering latent fingerprint evidence or the specifics of how fingerprint testing is conducted. Nor did the State produce expert evidence to explain that certain surfaces, such as the handgun in issue, may not yield fingerprints.
The results of the fingerprint testing became an issue during closing argument. The prosecutor's summation included the following comment with regard to the test results:
The next form you have is State's Exhibit 1B and the important thing about 1B is this is basically the second page of the firearms report and down at the bottom it says "processed for latent prints," and then it says who it was processed by and it also says the results of the latent prints test were negative. Well, what does that mean? That means it was negative. (Inaudible) Well, you would say the next question is, "Well, how could that be?" We heard Officer Laronde testify that he picked up that handgun with his bare hands. We heard Officer Thompson say he picked up that handgun with his bare hands. So, if they picked it up, why wouldn't their prints be on it. Well, the reason that their prints weren't on it is that the surface of the handgun is such that there can't be prints that are obtained from it, because they were incapable of getting prints off of this handgun, because, surely, if they would have gotten any prints, they would have gotten the prints of the two officers who admitted holding that handgun. (Emphasis added.)
In her closing argument, the defense attorney stated, in part:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have a gun. We don't have a problem (inaudible). However — and we also stipulated (inaudible), which you'll receive (inaudible), that the gun was submitted. The State would have you believe that when the gun was submitted, the prints came back negative. Well, they did come back negative. They came back negative for the officers. Why? Because they weren't looking for the officers' prints. They were looking for Mr Washington's prints. (Emphasis added.)
The prosecutor objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. The prosecutor then asked the court to tell "the jury . . . to disregard that[,]" and a sidebar was convened. The following ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake and Charles v. State, 3021, September Term, 2007.
... ... The appellants rely on Washington v. State, 180 Md.App. 458, 951 A.2d 885 (2008), to argue that "[c]ounsel was entitled to ... broad latitude in closing argument even though the argument at issue touched on the law instead of the facts [as in Washington ]." Washington, however, addressed latitude in closing argument to argue ... ...
-
Dorsey v. State
... ... 2. In view of the issues presented, we need not include a detailed summary of the evidence adduced at trial. Instead, we shall include "only the portions of the trial evidence necessary to provide a context for our discussion ... " Washington v. State, 180 Md.App. 458, 461 n. 2, 951 A.2d 885 (2008); see Singfield v. State, 172 Md.App. 168, 170, 913 A.2d 671 (2006), cert. denied, 398 Md. 316, 920 A.2d 1060 (2007); Martin v. State, 165 Md. App. 189, 193, 885 A.2d 339 (2005), cert. denied, 391 Md. 115, 892 A.2d 478 (2006) ... ...
-
Donati v. State
... ... 127, 142, 751 A.2d 24, cert. denied, 360 Md. 276, 757 A.2d 811 (2000). An appellate court should not “ ‘interfere with that judgment unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge of a character likely to have injured the complaining party.’ ” Washington" v. State, 180 Md.App. 458, 473, 951 A.2d 885 (2008) (quoting Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 413, 326 A.2d 707). Here, during defense counsel's closing argument, he attempted to raise questions regarding the credibility of Growlers' employees. The argument proceeded as follows: \xC2" ... ...
- Joyner v. State