Woolford v. State

• Docket Number: 1165-2022
• Decision Date: 03 November 2023
• Parties: JAICHOAUN DEQUANDRE WOOLFORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

JAICHOAUN DEQUANDRE WOOLFORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1165-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

November 3, 2023

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND^[*]

Circuit Court for Dorchester County Case No C-09-CR-21-000220.

Graeff, Zic, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Zarnoch, J. Appellant, Jaichoaun Woolford, was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County and convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, carrying a loaded handgun, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. The court sentenced Appellant to life in prison, suspending all but fifty years, for first-degree murder, and a consecutive twenty years, suspending all but thirteen, for use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal and asks this Court two questions, which we have slightly rephrased:^[1]

I. Did the court err in overruling his objection to the State's closing argument?

II. Did the court err in admitting evidence related to Zakariya Baker?

We shall answer both questions in the negative and affirm the convictions. We discuss.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2021, the grand jury for Dorchester County indicted Appellant with nine counts relating to the shooting of two victims: Jihad Brown, who died from his injuries, and Zakariya Baker, who was shot in the arm but survived. With respect to the death of Mr. Brown, the State charged Appellant with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, carrying a loaded handgun, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. As to Mr. Baker, the State charged Appellant with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The relevant evidence at trial was as follows.

Midday on November 7, 2021, two men were walking along Greenwood Avenue in Cambridge when a third man, dressed in all black, approached and starting shooting at them. One of the men shot, Jihad Brown, fell to the ground, and the other man, who was dressed in red pants and a black jacket, tripped over Mr. Brown before getting up and running away. The man dressed in all black continued to approach and shoot Mr. Brown. Each of these events was caught on surveillance cameras present along Greenwood Avenue. That footage also shows a woman, later identified as Ka'Naya Bailey, approaching the shooter yelling "Jai" and "stop."

Sergeant McCray testified that he was driving home for lunch that day when he heard what sounded like gunfire. He turned onto Greenwood Avenue and saw "a man with a gun assume a shooting stance," who was "hooded up" and "wearing all black." The shooter ran, and Sergeant McCray and Corporal Newcomb, who was in a patrol car behind Sergeant McCray, began to pursue him.

The officers lost sight of the man several times and began to chase him by foot. During the chase, Corporal Newcomb saw the man "hesitate[]" near a "burgundy car[.]" The chase continued and the man thereafter emerged from "between . . . houses[,]" however, by that point, he was "no longer wearing the hooded shirt or jacket[.]" Corporal Newcomb testified that despite the fact that the man was missing the jacket, he knew that it was "definitely the same person" because he had the "[s]ame facial hair" and the "same pants." Corporal Newcomb detained the man, later identified as Appellant, and recovered a black jacket on the ground in the area between houses from which Appellant emerged.

Mr. Brown was transported to shock trauma, where he died. An autopsy identified eight gunshot wounds on Mr. Brown; however, because one was a graze wound and another had an exit wound, only six bullets were recovered during the autopsy. Less than thirty minutes after the shooting, Mr. Baker arrived at a nearby hospital wearing red pants and suffering from a gunshot wound to his left arm.

That afternoon, a handgun was located under the burgundy car, and a deformed projectile, twelve 9-millimeter Luger cartridge casings, and four 40-caliber cartridge casings were recovered from the crime scene.

At trial, a toolmark expert testified that each of the 9-millimeter Luger cartridge casings recovered from the crime scene were fired by the gun recovered from underneath the burgundy car.^[2] Further, Ms. Bailey testified that at the time of the shooting, she had dated Mr. Brown for about a month and had known Appellant - to her, "Jai" - for "[a] couple years." She testified that after hearing gunshots on the day of the shooting, she saw Mr. Brown fall to the ground and his friend "f[a]ll over" before getting up and taking off running. She noted that although "it happened so fast[,]" she had seen the shooter's face, whom she recognized as Appellant's, and recalled saying "stop, Jai."

The State entered Mr. Baker's medical records and clothes from his emergency visit into evidence. The medical records state that: "P[atient] reports he was with his 'boy' when some guys just started shooting at them. P[atient] reports he started to run and saw his 'boy' drop to the ground with the guys standing over top of him." The clothes included a white short-sleeved shirt, white shoes, and red pants.

At the close of the State's case, Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal as to the three counts relating to Mr. Baker. In support, he asserted that the image the State submitted of Mr. Baker allegedly at the crime scene was a "distant photograph," that Mr. Baker was not wearing the black jacket seen in the surveillance video at the hospital, and that Mr. Baker did not testify at trial. The court granted Appellant's motion, reasoning that:

[U]nfortunately Mr. Baker didn't testify in this case so we're stuck with what he told medical personnel, both you and the State, and me, and as I recollect on page 3, it says, I was with my boy and some guys, not guy, some guys. And it's clear in the video that I saw that, at least -- I didn't see, and we've heard testimony that there's casings from a 40 Smith &Wesson over by an office building. But nowhere in any of the video is another shooter present or pictured.

We have no testimony, we just had the firearms expert testify, and nowhere, the only thing she said is the casings came from the same gun. No gun was recovered. There's no video of another shooter that I see. I only saw one shooter the whole time that was within feet of Mr. Baker and Mr. Brown.

And there's testimony from one of the State's witnesses, I believe one of the police officers said there was another shooting [o]n Pine Street that day[.]

Trial proceeded as to the charges relating only to Mr. Brown. During closing argument, defense counsel instructed the jury to look at the evidence, and specifically, "what we don't have." Defense counsel stated: "Follow-up interviews. The testimony, it's about one o'clock on Sunday, did police officers talk to anybody? The State has to produce that. The State puts that on. Knock on any doors? Zero."

During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor responded as follows:

[THE STATE:] So, let's talk about what he decided the State lacked. One of the first things that [defense counsel] said was it's the State's job to produce who pulled up in that car and went in that house, right? That's the State's job. Didn't knock on the door, didn't swab that car, I don't give a flying hoot who pulled up in that car. I could care less who pulled up in that car.

What I care about is who walked down that street and murdered Mr. Brown. What I care about is who is standing out on that street firing nine shots, eight of them into the victim. That's what I care about. That's what the officers care about.

So, no, nobody's worried about who pulls up in that car. Yeah, we have a theory that it's the Defendant. But that's not what I have to prove. I don't have to prove who's in that car.

He wants to talk about did you knock on any doors, there's no, there's no -- everything stopped. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Object. Facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[THE STATE]: It just means that there was nothing pertinent to bring to the table. I'm not going to waste your time hearing about things that didn't, that weren't successful, weren't helpful, no. But then he wouldn't have anything for his closing if we did that.

The jury convicted Appellant of each of the charges relating to Mr. Brown. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the following portion of the State's closing argument:

He wants to talk about did you knock on any doors there's no, there's no -- everything stopped. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Specifically, he asserts that by permitting the State's assertion, the court permitted the prosecutor to "refer[] to aspects of the police investigation that were not revealed at trial[,]" and "vouch[] for the police investigation and the police witnesses."

Further, Appellant maintains that the court erred in admitting evidence relating to Mr. Baker because it "was irrelevant to the prosecution of Mr. Woolford[,]" as well as unfairly prejudicial, because it "gave the jurors the impression that Mr. Baker was wrapped up in the incident even though - as the court subsequently acknowledged - no reasonable person could conclude that he was involved based on the evidence." Finally, Appellant asserts that "[b]ecause the trial court erred in permitting the improper statement in the State's rebuttal and in admitting the evidence related to Mr. Baker, and because the errors were not harmless either separately or collectively, reversal is required."

The State responds...