Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 26 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1143,1143 |
| Parties | JAMIE WILSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case Nos: 113093032, 113093033 113093034 & 113093037
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Reed, 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.
Jamie Wilson, the appellant, was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on thirteen charges beginning April 14, 2015. The appellant was convicted of two counts of second degree assault, one count of use of a knife as a deadly weapon with intent to injure, and one count of false imprisonment, but acquitted of the following counts: first degree rape, sexual offense in the first degree-fellatio, sexual offense in the second degree, sexual offense in the first degree-anal penetration with penis, sexual offense in the first degree-anal penetration with a bottle, sexual offense in the second degree, assault in the first degree, use of a phone cord as a deadly weapon with intent to injure, and use of a bottle as a deadly weapon with an intent to injure. The appellant received concurrent sentences of 10 years for the two counts of second degree assault, a consecutive sentence of 3 years for use of a deadly weapon with intent to injure, and another consecutive sentence of 30 years, with all but 20 years suspended, for false imprisonment. The appellant was placed on 5 years' supervised probation upon release. On appeal, he presents the following four questions for our review:
For the following reasons, we answer all four question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The appellant and the victim had been in an on and off relationship for about seven and a half years at the time of the incident on March 7, 2013. They had two children together, who, luckily, were not at the scene when the incident in question took place.
The following is the victim's version of the incident, to which she testified at trial: Around 11 a.m. on March 7, 2013, she left the appellant's residence at 629 Annabel Street in Baltimore to purchase drugs. She testified that she consumed $10 worth of heroin before returning to the appellant's residence sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. At that time, an argument ensued between her and the appellant. The victim testified that the argument started because she had taken too long to buy drugs and did not answer her phone while she was out. The argument between them escalated until it reached a point where the appellant "became physical." The victim testified that the appellant slapped her on her face and chest. The appellant retrieved different objects, such as a blue plastic hanger and knives, to strike her. The appellant then put the victim in a choke hold with a phone charger, causing her to almost pass out.
The victim continued to testify that the appellant then told her to remove her clothing and proceeded to duct tape her legs and hands. The appellant also duct taped her mouth because she was screaming, but he then ripped it off and demanded that she perform oral sex on him. The victim could not stop the appellant because he grabbed her head and pushed her down. The appellant continued to assault her by penetrating her vagina with his penis after demanding she turn over on her stomach. The appellant fetched a bottle and used it to shove into her vagina and anus. The appellant also penetrated the victim's anuswith his penis after making her look at the bottle with her blood and feces on it. Meanwhile, the appellant told the victim that he loved her and that it was her making him take these actions. The appellant also told the victim that she was a junkie and that she did not deserve to live.
At some point, the appellant left the room where the incident took place, saying he was going to leave by taking the victim's car key. While the victim was still duct taped, she was able to free her left pointer finger and call 911. As the victim was yelling out the address to the 911 operator, the appellant came back into the room and took the phone from her. The appellant finally cut the victim's hands and feet free after slapping her with the knife and striking her a few more times. Once the victim was free, she grabbed her clothes and tried to leave, but the appellant kept blocking her. When he finally let her go, she got out of the house and ran up the street. The victim found a girl on the street, asked to use the girl's phone, and called 911 again. At that time, the police had begun arriving at the appellant's residence. The victim was then taken to the hospital for medical examination.
At trial, the appellant testified to a different version of the story and denied all of the victim's allegations. The appellant agreed that the victim came to his house on the morning on March 7, 2013. The appellant also agreed that he gave the victim money to purchase "Coke and Heroin." However, the appellant testified that the victim returned to his residence between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. When the victim returned, she already had bruises on her legs and a mark on her neck. The victim sat on the couch and injected heroin into her arm while he was present. The appellant and the victim argued and the appellant asked her to leave. Then the appellant left the house to take a walk. During the walk, theappellant received a call from the police. The appellant denied causing any harm, including duct taping the victim, striking her with any objects, and engaging in any form of sexual acts with her on the date of the incident. The appellant stated that all he did on the night of the incident was ask her to leave his house.
Three expert witnesses were admitted to prove the State's case. The State's expert witness, Erin Lamar, was a forensic nursing examiner at Mercy Medical Center. Ms. Lamar examined the victim on March 7, 2013, the day the victim was taken to the hospital. Ms. Lamar testified that the victim's blood test was negative for alcohol, but positive for cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and benzodiazepines. Ms. Lamar continued to testify that she observed redness to the victim's face, multiple areas of injury on her neck, and injuries on both legs, arms, torso, and breast area during the assessment. Ms. Lamar also observed injuries around the victim's neck consistent with strangulation, as well as several patterned injuries on the victim's body that could have been caused by being struck by an object or blunt force. In addition to the body surface examination, Ms. Lamar performed swabbing of the pertinent areas, a pelvic examination, and a genital examination on the victim. Ms. Lamar also found multiple tears and bruising throughout the entire circumference of the victim's anal area. Ms. Lamar testified that the injuries she observed during the examination were from penetration.
Ms. Lamar also conducted a forensic examination on the appellant at Mercy Medical Center. In doing so, she collected swabs from his mouth, fingernails, and genitals and gathered his boxer shorts.
The State also called William Young, a criminalist II, in the Forensic Biology Unit of the Baltimore Police Department's Forensic Laboratory Section, to the stand. Mr. Young examined the swabs he received from the victim's SAFE kit. Mr. Young observed sperm cells on the peri-anal swab. In addition, the lacy areas on the front of the victim's underwear tested positive for seminal fluid and sperm. Mr. Young cut a portion of the stain that tested positive and packaged it for DNA analysis. Mr. Young also received the appellant's kit containing his swabs and boxer shorts. When a stain on the appellant's boxer shorts tested positive for the presence of human blood, Mr. Young cut a portion of that stain and packaged it for DNA analysis as well. Mr. Young also received an Old English brand 800-malt liquor 22-ounce bottle, a phone charger, and a blue plastic hanger. The bottle tested negative for the presence of both seminal fluid and human blood.
The State also called Jennifer Bresset, a DNA analyst with the Baltimore City Police Department. Ms. Bresset testified to her DNA analysis results on the known standard for the victim and the appellant based on the peri-anal swabs, the peri-oral swabs, a portion of a stain from the victim's underwear, a portion of a stain from the appellant's boxer shorts, and swabs from the bottle. The DNA collected from the victim's peri-anal swab was consistent with that of the victim.1 The DNA of the sperm fraction collected from the peri-oral swab matched with the victim's. The DNA of the sperm fraction collected from thestain on the victim's underwear belonged to the victim. From the boxer shorts taken from the appellant, Ms. Bresset found a DNA profile consistent with a mixture of two individuals, the victim and the appellant. Ms. Bresset found a male DNA profile on the bottle. The appellant was identified as the source of the male profile, but the victim's DNA was not found on the bottle.
Ultimately, the jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of second degree assault, one count of use of a knife as a deadly weapon with intent to injure, and one count of false imprisonment. The appellant received the following sentence: 10 years for second degree assault; 10 years, concurrent, for second degree assault; 3 years, consecutive, for the use of a knife as a deadly weapon; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial