Williams v. State, 0749
Decision Date | 11 July 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 0749,0749 |
Parties | MICHELLE LYNN WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED
Kehoe, Leahy, Davis, Arrie W. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Kehoe, 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.
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, Michelle Williams, appellant, was convicted of child abuse, rendering a child in need of assistance, and two counts each of second-degree assault and intercepting oral communications.1 Appellant asks two questions on appeal:
For the following reasons, we shall affirm the circuit court's judgments.
The State's theory of prosecution was that, on the late afternoon of August 3, 2014, appellant and two other women were involved in the assault of then eight-year-old C. W. Appellant is related to C. through marriage - she is C.'s great-aunt. The State introduced into evidence a video appellant took of the assault, as well as the testimony of C., and the investigating social worker and police officer. The theory of defense was lack of criminal agency and culpability. Appellant's husband testified for the defense. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the following was established.
On September 3, 2014, Ashley Farr, a child protective service assessor for the Cecil County Department of Social Services, received a referral for C. W. and spoke with her the next day in the home of her guardian, Debbie Dawkins. Apparently, C. had been living with Dawkins for close to a year because C.'s mother was unable to provide for her care. During their conversation, Dawkins gave Farr a 27-second video. The video shows C. screaming while being assaulted by three women who were later identified as appellant, Dawkins and Andrea Lloyd. Debbie Dawkins and appellant are sisters, and appellant is married to C.'s great-uncle, Arthur Williams. Appellant, Dawkins, and Lloyd are neighbors. Farr reviewed the video and gave it to Detective Lindsay Ziegenfuss of the Elkton Police Department.
On September 5, 2014, Detective Ziegenfuss removed C. from Dawkins's home. Later that day, the detective went to Dawkins's home to obtain clothing for C.. She asked Dawkins and appellant, who was also present, whether they would speak with her about C. and the video. They agreed. The detective audiotaped their conversation, which was played for the court.
During the conversation, appellant told the detective that, on August 3rd, Dawkins, her sister, had telephoned her and asked her to come over to her house because she was having trouble with C.. When she arrived, Dawkins and Andrea Lloyd were present. Appellant noticed that C. was hyperventilating, so she went into the bathroom to get a wet rag to wipe C.'s face. When she returned, Lloyd was "wrestling" with C.. She claimed thattwo days after the incident she discovered the video on her phone, and it was only then that she realized that Lloyd was not wrestling with C. but choking her. Appellant denied being involved in the incident or video recording it on her phone, and suggested that C. had recorded the assault while she was being assaulted. Appellant eventually admitted to the detective that it was her voice in the video telling C. to show Uncle Art how upset she was.
The video was played for the trial court. Additionally, still images from the video were also admitted into evidence. Based on distinctive tattoos on the hands and arms of Lloyd and appellant, the detective described what was happening in the video and photographs. The images showed a crying and, at times, screaming, C.. Appellant's hand can be seen reaching forward at one point to grab C.'s upper left arm. The video shows Lloyd's hand around C.'s neck while she is being pushed onto the living room couch. Appellant is heard saying, "Show Uncle Art you are crying." Dawkins is heard saying, "Show Uncle Art your ugly face."
C. W. testified that she had lived with Dawkins, and that appellant had made the video. C. referred to appellant as "Aunt Michelle" and explained that she was her uncle's wife and Dawkins's sister. C. testified that, before the video was taken, she was crying because she missed her mother with whom she had had only limited phone contact while living with Dawkins. C. testified that, on the day of the videotaping, Dawkins had hurt herby hitting her, appellant had hurt her by "twist[ing] her lip," and Lloyd had hurt her by choking her.
Matthews, Dawkins neighbor, testified that, sometime in August 2014, Dawkins had asked her to come over and help her calm down C.. When she got there, C. was "very worked up" - she was screaming and crying and trying to catch her breath. Matthews left shortly thereafter. A few days later, Dawkins asked Matthews to meet her and appellant, which she did. Appellant said she had a video on her cell phone that she wanted Dawkins to see. They asked Matthews if she could help them forward the video from appellant's phone to Dawkins phone, which she did.
Appellant's husband testified that he and appellant lived about five blocks from Dawkins, his wife's sister. He testified that, while C. lived at Dawkins's home, appellant visited Dawkins "a couple of times." He explained that C.'s mother is his sister's daughter, making C. his great-niece.
Appellant argues on appeal that her convictions should be reversed because the trial court erred when it accepted her jury trial waiver without ensuring that she "knowingly" and "voluntarily" relinquished her right, under Md. Rule 4-246(b), the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Articles 5, 23, and 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights.Appellant acknowledges that her counsel did not object to the allegedly "defective waiver colloquy," but nonetheless argues that a lack of an objection does not preclude appellate review. The State responds that, because there was no objection, appellant has waived both of her arguments. The State further argues that, even if her arguments are preserved, the examination of appellant was sufficient to ensure that her jury trial waiver was knowing and voluntary.
On the first day of trial, defense counsel informed the trial court that appellant was waiving her right to a jury trial. Defense counsel asked the court if he could question her about her election, and the following colloquy occurred:
A. Preservation
Appellant concedes, as she must, that she did not object at any time to her examination but argues that a contemporaneous objection is not required to preserve her argument that the colloquy was defective under both Md. Rule 4-246(b) and federal/state constitutional law.
An accused's right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968). Similar protection is given criminal defendants in the Articles of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, specifically Articles 5, 21, and 24. Boulden v. State, 414 Md. 284, 293-94 (2010). A defendant has the corresponding right to waive the right to a jury trial and instead elect to be tried by the court. Id. at 294 (citations omitted).
Those constitutional rights are protected and amplified in Md. Rule 4-246, which governs the waiver of trial by jury in the circuit court....
To continue reading
Request your trial