Charleau v. State

MATRICCIANI, J. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on November 3 through 5, 2009, appellant Roland Charleau was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The jury acquitted appellant of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial judge sentenced appellant to incarceration of ten years for each count, to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely appeal, raising the following two questions: I. Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial?

II

Was the evidence legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon? For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court. ⁵⁵¹ FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant’s charges arise from the robbery of B.J.’s Beer and Wine located on Goshen Road in Gaithersburg. According to the testimony of Sung Lim, on May 16, 2009, he was working alone as the cashier when two black males entered the store around noon. Mr. Lim could not see their faces, because each was covered with a handkerchief.

The first man to enter the store, described as the “big guy,” pointed a gun at Mr. Sim and said, “where is your money and I’m not kidding.” A “skinny guy” entered about a minute later. Mr. Sim testified that he handed them some money, and when told to open the cash register, he complied, and the men placed the contents in a black plastic bag from underneath the register. The men then asked “where the video tape’s at,” and when told, one of the men tried to grab the video camera. Mr. Sim was instructed to get down on the ground, so he did so.

He was not sure which of the two robbers was speaking to him at the time. When shown exhibit photographs, Mr. Sim described what was happening in each photograph, and identified the “big guy” with a gun. According to Mr. Sim, the men took over $600 in cash. Montgomery County police responded to Mr. Sim’s call.

Montgomery County Police Officer David Grimm testified that he responded to a report of armed robbery at B.J.’s Beer and Wine on May 16, 2009, at approximately 12:45 p.m. While he was speaking with Mr. Sim, a woman — later identified as Lakesha Akinsada, appellant’s wife — came to the store. She approached Officer Grimm, and handed him several checks and deposit slips belonging to the store. Officer Grimm called for other units to assist him in responding to Ms. Akinsada’s residence at 9425 Eagleton Lane, located less than a half mile from the place of the incident.

At the residence, appellant’s wife showed the officer two photographs of appellant. She also granted Officer Grimm and his colleagues permission to search the house, but the suspects were not located. Appellant’s co-defendant, Dante Craven, testified that he was with appellant at the Owings Mills Mall in Baltimore ⁵⁵² County when they were arrested for the robbery of B.J.’s. After his arrest, Craven signed his advice of rights form and voluntarily spoke with the officers in Rockville.

Although he initially denied any involvement with the robbery, Craven eventually admitted that he was one of the two robbers. He entered into a plea agreement with the State, and, pursuant to the agreement, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery and agreed to testify truthfully in appellant’s trial. At the time of the trial, he had already entered his guilty plea. Craven testified that he and appellant talked about robbing the beer and wine store before doing so.

When the robbery took place, appellant was the one with the handgun. After the robbery, they first went to appellant’s home on Eagleton Lane, and then to Baltimore, in a rented car, for the purpose of getting out of Montgomery County. At trial, Craven was shown several photographs, and asked to describe who and what was in each photograph. With the aid of the photographs, Craven testified that appellant was first to enter the store, holding the handgun.

Both men covered their faces with bandanas to avoid identification, and both were wearing gloves. Appellant went behind the counter as he told the cashier to open the register. As appellant pointed the gun at the cashier, Craven assisted in getting the money out of the register and putting it in a black plastic bag from the store, which also contained receipts. Detective Mark Hayden testified that he interviewed Craven after his arrest, and that no promises, threats or plea agreements were made in exchange for his confession.

Detective Hayden stated that he first brought up appellant’s name in the interview, and asked Craven whether he had been involved in the robbery with appellant. After initially denying his own involvement, however, Craven confessed that he was involved in these robberies with appellant. Detective Hayden also pointed out that the photographs revealed that both appellant and Craven wore gloves during the robbery, and testified to the differences in height and weight between appellant and Craven. ⁵⁵³ Montgomery County Police Detective Roger St. Louis testified that on May 19, 2009, his unit received information that appellant and Dante Craven were in the Owings Mills Shopping Center. They responded in plain clothes, and located the two men in a phone store.

After appellant and Craven exited the store, the detectives placed them under arrest. Craven initially resisted arrest, and he had to be tased. Detective St. Louis’s job was to transport appellant back to Montgomery County. He testified that while they were driving down Route 95, appellant asked if he would take $10,000 to let him out of the vehicle.

After the detective laughed and rejected the offer, appellant then raised the amount to $20,000. Detective St. Louis testified that he said no and just kept driving. Detective Grant Lee of the Montgomery County Forensic Services testified that on May 20, 2009, he processed a 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier in relation to the robbery of a beer and wine store. During his search of that car, he located appellant’s driver’s license and an Express Rent-A-Car rental agreement showing that the car had been rented to appellant several days earlier.

Appellant’s 15 year-old step-daughter, Bridgette Akinsade, testified that on the morning of the robbery, her mother and appellant had an argument, after which her mother left the house. She later saw appellant and Craven walking out of the house together. At that time, appellant was drinking a beer out of a black plastic bag with the name of a liquor store on it. At the close of the State’s evidence, appellant moved for judgment of acquittal, which was denied.

Appellant called his sister-in-law, Sharita Howard-Wilson, who was living at 9425 Eagleton Lane on the date of the robbery. She testified that she and appellant had a 45-minute conversation that began shortly before noon on the day of the robbery, and that Craven came to the house. Howard-Wilson testified that there was only a ten minute period (while she was taking a shower) between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. during which she did not see appellant. ⁵⁵⁴ The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the following three counts: armed robbery, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, and a verdict of not guilty on the count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. On November 16, 2009, appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which argued that he was deprived of a fair trial.

He based this argument on facts uncovered by his trial counsel during a conversation with two jury members in the courtroom lobby after the verdict was reached. Appellant averred that “[tjhese jurors indicated to counsel that another one of the jurors was a professional photography analyst and that the analyst provided the other jurors with magnifying equipment during deliberations.” According to appellant, the jurors indicated that the equipment, together with the expertise of this juror, “was decisive in the jury’s deliberations.” On the basis of this information, appellant maintained that he was deprived of a fair trial. In response, the State indicated that, during the conversation, the jurors had also described several other considerations which led to their verdict, including the changing “mood” of the jurors during deliberations. On January 6, 2010, prior to sentencing, the trial judge reviewed appellant’s motion for a new trial based, and the following colloquy occurred: DEFENSE COUNSEL: [Tjhe jury based its decision on analysis and conclusions and expertise that came outside of what was presented in this room, what was presented at trial and on the record.

What was heard at trial and on the record did not relate to a detailed analysis of the photograph. The State did not argue even that “Look at this picture. It kind of looks like Mr. Charleau” or anything like that and there was certainly no expert who came in who said, well, using some kind of magnification technique, I can determine that this person matches certain characteristics of Mr. Charleau. That was not the focus of the State’s case.

But what came out in a discussion that jurors had when I was present and when the State’s Attorney was present, ⁵⁵⁵ was that, in fact, one of the jurors had some kind of expertise in this issue or on this topic or at least purported expertise, held himself out in the jury room as an expert in this and brought in some kind of equipment. Whether a magnifying glass, it appeared to be a magnifying glass or something of that nature, and that with that equipment and with his expertise they were able to blow up this picture in the jury room and then draw conclusions from that, and apparently one juror was able to or purported to say that his expertise allowed him to conclude that the person in the picture was in fact Mr. Charleau. After hearing arguments from both parties, the trial court noted that it was an issue to be taken seriously, and reached the following conclusion: THE COURT: I think we need to be clear on the record exactly what type of analysis needs to be done in this case. This is not a case where there is an allegation that the jurors were in any way approached by a third party during the course of their deliberation.

Nor is there an allegation that extrinsic evidence was introduced in the midst of their deliberations. For example, there’s not an allegation that one of the jurors had gone out and pulled a [bjunch of stuff off the internet about photo analysis or whatever and brought that in for the jury to consider. As I understand the allegation in this case, and I think it is significant, what the specific allegation is. Although we have no specific information, the allegation is that in general one of the jurors allegedly had claimed to have some expertise in analyzing photos and brought in a magnifying glass and made it available to other jurors to use it in looking at the photo which was in evidence.

So the photo looked at was already evidence in the case. And when that is the case, it’s not necessarily, well, I guess it’s sort of an allegation of juror misconduct in the sense that they used a magnifying glass which was not provided by the Court or used during the course of the trial. ⁵⁵⁶ And I think the test for the Court to consider is can a fair and impartial [t]rial be had under these circumstances. It’s not a case where there is any type of presumption because of inappropriate third party contact or any kind that there might be a presumption that their verdict was based on something other than just the evidence. And looking at the case law that was cited by the Court, there is no specific Maryland case on this thing and I do also, I just need to be clear, that we don’t know anything about who this juror was or what the basis of his alleged experience was in looking at photographs.

We have absolutely no information on that..... But in almost every trial sometimes photos are published to the jury by passing them around; sometime they are published by being put on the Elmo which does in fact blow up the photos, if you will, or enhance them. In this trial they were shown to the jury on an Elmo but the jurors did not have the opportunity to individually examine that photo in any detail until they were provided with all of the evidence when they were in fact deliberating in this case. My opinion in this case is that no prejudice has been shown to the defendant and that he’s unable to show any prejudice.

The jurors were themselves, among themselves, examining the actual evidence in the case and the fact that a magnifying glass which enhanced it differently perhaps than the Elmo did, was used solely to examine the actual evidence in the case.