Watson v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 158,158 |
| Parties | THURMAN RUFUS WATSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Wells, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
The State alleged that Thurmond Watson held himself out to the public as a physician who could provide his patients with, among other things, weight loss treatments. One such "patient," A.A.,1 alleged that Watson sexually assaulted her during a supposed medical examination in his home-office. After a four-day trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, a jury convicted Watson of second-degree sexual offense, practicing medicine without a license, and misrepresentation as practitioner of medicine. The court sentenced Watson to 20 years' incarceration and suspended all but eight years. The court also ordered him to register as a sex offender.
Watson appeals his convictions and raises six allegations of error which we have re-phrased for clarity:2
For the reasons stated below, we perceive no reversable error and affirm the convictions.
At trial, A.A., an enlisted member of the United States Army, testified that she was introduced to Thurmond Watson by his daughter, Brooke Watson. A.A., Brooke, and Watson were all members of a nation-wide marketing and sales organization. A.A. testified that this close-knit organization treated its members "like family." A.A. said that she trusted Watson because he was known throughout the organization as "Doctor" and seemed to know everyone.
One day, A.A. received a mass email from Watson in which he promoted naturopathic weight loss strategies.3 Curious and wanting to try these treatments, A.A. made an appointment to see him. A.A. testified that she was under the impression she would be doing a "magnetic treatment, a saliva exam, and a BMI exam"4 with Watson at his home office, located in Oxon Hill.
Watson asked A.A. to turn over so she was lying face up. The next thing that A.A. recalled was that Watson moved a vibrating device over the surface of her body. At some point, according to A.A., he pushed the machine partially into her vagina. Although she was in distress and tried to sit up, A.A. said that Watson put his left elbow (or hand) on her stomach to prevented her from moving. A.A. also noted that Watson was sweating profusely and "stank." Toward the end of the encounter, A.A. testified that Watson wiped something off the right side of her body. She did not know what Watson wiped away because her eyes were covered. A.A. speculated that it was semen, although she admitted that she did not know if Watson had ejaculated or whether it was sweat that hit her body.
When she left Watson's office, A.A. recounted that she was confused and crying. At that time, she received a phone call from the father of one of her children and told him that something upsetting had just happened. On cross-examination she admitted that she might not have told him that Watson sexually assaulted her. But she added that it is possible that she told him more details later. Nonetheless, A.A. testified that a few hours after the encounter, she confided her unease about what had happened to her Army co-workers, one of whom was an "assault response coordinator," and another of whom was a victim advocate. They encouraged A.A. to report the incident to the civilian police. Shedid. Ultimately, A.A. went to Mercy hospital in Baltimore for a forensic medical examination and, later, gave the Prince George's County police a written statement of what transpired in Watson's office. The police opened a criminal investigation.
A few months after A.A.'s encounter, in a different case, the Maryland State Board of Physicians ("the Board") opened an investigation against Watson for allegedly practicing medicine without a license. In that case, an oncologist complained to the Board that a patient, T.L., had stopped life-saving cancer treatments because of Watson's intervention.5 According to Nancy Louthan, a Board investigator, the oncologist called Watson and engaged in a "heated" conversation with him regarding the medical care of T.L.. Suspecting that Watson was not a licensed physician, the oncologist reported Watson to the Board. The Board then launched an investigation and determined that although Watson claimed he was a physician, he held no license to practice medicine in Maryland or anywhere else.
The Office of the Maryland Attorney General subsequently prosecuted Watson for the sexual assault on A.A., and for practicing medicine without a license. A jury heard the evidence and found Watson guilty of second-degree sexual offense against A.A., practicing medicine without a license, and misrepresentation as practitioner of medicine. The courtsentenced Watson to an aggregate sentence of 20 years but suspended all but eight years' incarceration and ordered him to register as a sex offender.
Additional facts will be discussed as necessary.
Watson argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress tangible evidence the Board's investigators seized from his home-office during the execution of an administrative search warrant. The challenged evidence consists of three items: a photograph of a vibrator, (State's trial exhibit 5), a photograph of a "big box of vibrators, massage tools, and magneton," (State's trial exhibit 6), and a photograph of an envelope addressed to "Dr. Watson," (State's trial exhibit 15).6 Watson argues that in taking these photographs the investigators exceeded the administrative search warrant's scope.
The State argues, preliminarily, that Watson waived any objection to State's exhibits 5 and 6 by stipulating to their admission at trial. According to the State, at trial, Watson's counsel stated that, "The only thing I have issues with is State's 15 [the mailing label addressed to "Dr. Watson"]." Consequently, any challenge to State's exhibits 5 and 6 have been waived. Regardless, the State asserts that all three photographs fell within the scope of the warrant.
"In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we consider only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing." Garcia-Perlera v. State, 197 Md. App. 534, 552 (2011) (quoting Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 349 (2008); Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 (2008)). "In making our ruling, we 'review the evidence and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn in the light most favorable to the prevailing party' in this case, the State - but we 'do not engage in de novo factfinding.'" Id. (quoting Bost, 406 Md. at 349; Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 131 (2007)). "Instead, we "extend great deference to the findings of the motions court as to first-level findings of fact and as to the credibility, unless those findings are clearly erroneous."'" Id. (quoting Padilla v. State, 180 Md. App. 210, 218 (2008); Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 (2007)). "However, 'we make our own independent appraisal as to whether a constitutional right has been violated by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the case.'" Id. (quoting Padilla, 180 Md. App at 218; See also Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490, 504 (2009); State v. Williams, 401 Md. 676, 678 (2007)).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution commands that, "[n]o warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Constitution, amend. IV. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fourth Amendment's warrant restrictions applicable to the states. Garcia-Perlera, 197 Md. App. at 552-53 ().
The State's waiver argument rests on Watson's stipulated entry of State's exhibits 5 and 6 at trial, rather than the motions hearing. In determining whether the court committed error in denying Watson's motion to suppress is binding at trial and is reviewable on appeal, we examine the motions court's ruling, instead of what transpired at trial. Here, Watson properly moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial