Wilson v. State
Decision Date | 28 October 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 0497, Sept. Term, 2009.,0497, Sept. Term, 2009. |
Citation | 7 A.3d 197,195 Md.App. 647 |
Parties | Antajuan Lawntee WILSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Sherrie B. Glasser (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.
Jeremy M. McCoy (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Panel: EYLER, DEBORAH S., MATRICCIANI and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR., J. (Retired, Specially Assigned).
The primary focus of this opinion will be on the possibly mitigating influence of imperfect self-defense in criminal homicide cases. The mitigating defenses generally, even when successfully established, do not, of course, exculpate a defendant. Far from it. Even the successful defendant (successful in this limited regard) will still be a convicted felon facing a possible prison sentence of ten years. In the case of criminal homicide, however, because of its graduated levels of punishment based on graduated degrees of moral or mental blameworthiness, the law will sometimes lower the level of blameworthiness from the murder to the manslaughter level because of certain extenuating circumstances. Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. 249, 253, 473 A.2d 40, cert. denied, 300 Md. 316, 477 A.2d 1195 (1984) ();Glenn v. State, 68 Md.App. 379, 401, 511 A.2d 1110, cert. denied. 307 Md. 599, 516 A.2d 569 (1986); Bryant v. State, 83 Md.App. 237, 244, 574 A.2d 29 (1990).
As a secondary theme, we will also examine in some detail the mitigating defense of hot-blooded response to legally adequate provocation, frequently referred to simply as the Rule of Provocation.
As relatively arcane ameliorating influences, the imperfect defenses, as a group, have only recently been recognized in Maryland. Imperfect self-defense (along with the imperfect defense of others 1 and the imperfect defense of habitation) was first mentioned in Maryland case law by way of dicta in Evans v. State, 28 Md.App. 640, 658 n. 4, 349 A.2d 300 (1975), aff'd, 278 Md. 197, 362 A.2d 629 (1976). In Faulkner v. State, 54 Md.App. 113, 114-15, 458 A.2d 81 (1983), aff'd, 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759 (1984), Judge Orth (former Chief Judge of this Court, then retired from the Court of Appeals, and specially assigned to this Court) recounted the Maryland reception of this very significant new addition to this State's homicide law:
(Emphasis supplied). See also Moylan, Criminal Homicide Law (MICPEL, 2002), § 10.1, "The First Recognition of Imperfect Defenses in Maryland," p. 192:
As it undertook the systemic overhaul of homicide law necessitated by Mullaney v. Wilbur, the Court of Special Appeals, collectively and under the leadership of Chief Judge Charles E. Orth, made a deliberate policy decision. Rather than fragment into a dozen isolated pieces the analysis undergirding the widespread changes, that court deemed it advisable to place all of the analysis in the single central repository of Evans v. State. Recognizing that 90 percent of the Evans opinion would thereby be dicta, the court also decided to follow it up immediately with a series of other decisions that would apply the Evans analysis to various concrete circumstances. One day after Evans was issued, seven follow-up opinions were filed on Nov. 26. With a day off for Thanksgiving, four more followed on Nov. 28. Informally, the entire package was known among the judges of the Court of Special Appeals as the "dirtydozen." In any event, a large percentage of what was mere dicta on Tuesday was locked into a series of solid holdings by the close of business on Friday. It enhances understanding to appreciate that the Evans opinion does not stand alone but is rather the focal point for a galaxy of 12 intricately interwoven opinions, all decided within a 72-hour period.
(Emphasis supplied).
The role of the Court of Special Appeals in completely rewriting the homicide law of Maryland in 1975, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508, was trail blazing. The recognition of the imperfect defenses was but a part of a more sweeping reappraisal of homicide law generally. The Court of Appeals joined in recognizing imperfect self-defense in its affirmingdecision in State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759 (1984).
The appellant, Antajuan Lawntee Wilson, was convicted by a Howard County jury, presided over by Judge Richard S. Bernhardt, of murder in the first degree and related offenses. On appeal, he contends:
At approximately 11:00 A.M. on the morning of April 9, 2008, in an area known as Bryant Woods in Columbia, the appellant shot Brian Adams four times. Adams died of "multiple gunshot wounds." The appellant was indisputably the homicidal agent. The only issue before us is whether the evidence generated at least the reasonable possibility that the appellant, because of extenuating circumstances, may have been guilty only of manslaughter rather than of murder. We will now look first at imperfect self-defense as a possible set of extenuating circumstances.
By way of deep background (albeit only about ten minutes deep), the appellant relies heavily on the angry and belligerent atmosphere created when the appellant and Brian Adams first crossed each other's path shortly before the fatal shooting. The appellant seeks to extenuate the killing because of, insignificant measure, the lingering effects of that toxic atmosphere.
The homicide victim, Brian Adams, and his two "homeboys," Bryant Keene and Brandon Mitchell, had been driving in Columbia when Adams's car ran out of gas. Pulling it over on Twin Rivers Road, they walked to a nearby Crown Station to purchase gas. Present at the station were Walter Richardson and his friend, Christopher Harvey. Also on the scene was the appellant, who lived with his grandmother nearby and who had just walked to the Crown Station to buy a pack of cigarettes. As Adams and his "homeboys" arrived, the appellant glanced at Adams. Adams rudely retorted, "What the fuck is you looking at?" He demanded of the appellant whether he had a problem. The appellant replied, "No, it aint no problem." The appellant testified that Bryant Keene then "looked like he wanted to fight." Theappellant further recounted that Keene threatened to "pluck" him, interpreting that to mean "shoot me or something." Keene, at trial, acknowledged having said to the appellant, "We'll fuck you up" and "Fuck, we could beat you up right now." As the appellant began to walk away from the station, Keene took a step in pursuit but was stopped by Brandon Mitchell. Keene further testified that had Mitchell not held him back, he would have "popped" the appellant.
That potentially explosive situation, however, ugly as it had become, was then defused as the appellant, according to Walter Richardson, stated, "I don't want no beef," took his cigarettes, and walked away. Adams and the "homeboys," for their part, filled a can with gasoline and walked down Twin Rivers Road toward their car. The appellant went in a different direction toward his grandmother's house, which was several minutes away. Once Adams and his buddies drove away, the explosive potential would have totally dissipated. They were not from the neighborhood. The conflict had, for all intents and purposes, run its course-unless someone chose to reopen it. We will turn to the evidence of ensuing events as we take up our discussion of the appellant's contentions.
With respect to criminal homicide (and several of its close shadow crimes), self-defense is a full and perfect defense if the evidence satisfies five requirements. Four of those requirements were well stated by Judge Cole in State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. at 485-86, 483 A.2d 759:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Armstaed v. State
-
In re Peterson
... ... His very credible testimony about the Plaintiff's behavior and condition at that timeparticularly the Plaintiff's high state of intoxicationhas assisted this Court in rendering its ruling. IV. Factual Background A. History of Bad Blood between the Plaintiff and the Debtor ... Wilson v. State, 195 Md.App. 647, 7 A.3d 197, 223 (2010). These are the circumstances surrounding this dispute. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ... ...
-
In re James Timothy Peterson
... ... His very credible testimony about the Plaintiff's behavior and condition at that time—particularly the Plaintiff's high state of intoxication—has assisted this Court in rendering its ruling. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. History of Bad Blood between the Plaintiff and the ... if it is compounded by some physical contact not amounting to a significant battery, society cannot permit the passions to be unbridled." Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 233 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010). These are the circumstances surrounding this dispute. Accordingly, the Court concludes that ... ...
-
Hamel v. Warden
... ... habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging ... the validity of his state court convictions. ECF 1 & 3 ... The respondents filed an answer to the petition asking the ... Court to deny it as meritless. ECF 19 ... Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” ... 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Wilson v ... Corcoran , 562 U.S. 1 (2010); Barnes v. Joyner , ... 751 F.3d 229, 238 (4th Cir. 2014) ... With ... ...
-
§ 18.02 Use of Deadly Force: Clarification of the General Principles
...Privilege, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1099 (2014); Suk, Note 38, supra; see also Dressler, Note 43, supra, at 1483.[49] E.g., Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 203 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010); People v. Riddle, 649 N.W.2d 30, 34 (Mich. 2002). Special rules apply to law enforcement officers in furtherance......
-
§ 18.02 USE OF DEADLY FORCE: CLARIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
...Privilege, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1099 (2014); Suk, Note 38, supra; see also Dressler, Note 43, supra, at 1483.[49] . E.g., Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 203 (Md. 2010); People v. Riddle, 649 N.W.2d 30, 34 (Mich. 2002). Special rules necessarily apply to law enforcement officers in furtherance ......
-
§18.03 DEADLY FORCE:"IMPERFECT" SELF-DEFENSE CLAIMS
...S.E.2d 489, 497 (N.C. 1992). See § 18.02[B][2][b], supra.[88] . E.g., In re Christian S., 872 P.2d 574, 575 (Cal. 1994); Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 204 (Md. 2010); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 165 (Miss. 2012); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124-25 (Pa. 2012).[89] . E.g., Kan......
-
§ 18.03 Deadly Force: "Imperfect" Self-Defense Claims
...417 S.E.2d 489, 497 (N.C. 1992). See § 18.02[B][2][b], supra.[88] E.g., In re Christian S., 872 P.2d 574, 575 (Cal. 1994); Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 204 (Md. 2010); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 165 (Miss. 2012); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124-25 (Pa. 2012).[89] E.g., Kan......