Correll v. State

EYLER, DEBORAH S., J. A jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County convicted Matthew Derek Correll, the appellant, of first-degree murder (both premeditated and felony murder), second-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, and two counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The court sentenced the appellant to life in prison without parole and three consecutive sentences of twenty years each. The appellant poses five questions for review, which we have reworded as follows: 1 ⁴⁹⁰ I. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support any of the convictions?

II

Did the trial court err by limiting the scope of impeachment of three State’s witnesses?

III

Did the trial court err by denying the appellant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Adrian Smith?

IV

Did the trial court err by allowing allegedly improper statements by the prosecutor during opening statement and closing argument? V. Did the trial court err by failing to give certain jury instructions? For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In the early morning hours of November 25, 2004, Christopher Mader was found dead in the driver’s seat of his silver 2001 Dodge Stratus, with a gunshot wound to the head.

The Stratus had come to rest on the side of Smallwood Drive, in Waldorf, after crashing into electrical boxes. It was still running, was in drive, and its back windshield was shattered. Mader had been driving home from his job as a bartender at Bennigan’s. Police were called to the scene.

They recovered from the Stratus a .40 caliber bullet on the floorboard, a coin bag with $59.46, and Mader’s wallet, containing $1,080. The initial investigation into the shooting did not turn up any leads. In March 2007, Kevin Smith, an inmate at the Brockbridge Correctional Institution and a self-described “jailhouse attorney,” wrote a letter to the Charles County Sheriffs Office in ⁴⁹¹ which he claimed to know the identity of the person who had shot and killed Mader. In April 2007, Smith was questioned by Detective Keith Moody, and stated that the appellant, a fellow inmate at Brockbridge, had confessed to the murder.

The police undertook an investigation, which included interviews of Shawn Myers and James Chaney, friends of the appellant. On October 22, 2010, the appellant was arrested and charged in connection with Mader’s murder. At trial, Kevin Smith testified for the State. He recounted that when they were inmates the appellant had come to him for advice because he was concerned that “a guy that he had committed murder with whom he referred to as James ... was weak and ... might go to the police.” Over the course of four or five days, the appellant told Smith the details of the murder.

According to Smith, the appellant explained that he and “James” had become aware of a “guy” who worked at Bennigan’s who carried large amounts of money at the end of the night. They went to “the spot,” watched the “guy” get into his car alone, and followed his car. James was driving and the appellant, who had a gun, was in the front passenger seat. They had planned to stage an accident — to tap the back of the “guy’s” car so he would get out.

Smith was unsure if that is what happened. As the appellant told him, the “guy’s” car did come to a stop somewhere and James and the appellant pulled up alongside it. The appellant approached the “guy,” and when the “guy” saw the gun, he sped off in his car. The appellant told Smith that he then “like panicked ... and lost it and he shot the guy.” The “guy’s” car crashed into something, and the appellant “approached the car to go see if the guy had the money on him.” As the appellant further recounted to Smith, at that point, James panicked and drove off, leaving the appellant at the scene.

The appellant ran behind him, but James would not stop. The appellant then ran behind a building. From there he could see people stopping where Mader’s car had crashed. A few minutes later, police officers arrived.

The appellant “started panicking” and buried the gun behind the building. He then walked along a “wooded type area” and eventually ⁴⁹² caught a ride from a man to whom he gave “a couple of dollars.” They went to a trailer park and the appellant got out. Smith further testified that the appellant told him the victim’s name was Chris Mader; that Mader’s car was a silver or gray sports car; and that the events took place around Thanksgiving or Christmas. The appellant mentioned to Smith that “a reward was out.” That prompted Smith to write the letter to the Charles County Sheriffs Office.

Smith testified that he came forward with information because he was interested in the reward, wanted help with the Parole Commission, and did not like the way the appellant had spoken about Mader’s parents. Smith further testified that he had not received the reward and had not been promised anything for his testimony. He acknowledged that he had testified as a State’s witness on one prior occasion — during a 2001 homicide case — and that afterward, a detective had written a letter to the Parole Commission on his behalf. James Chaney also testified as a State’s witness.

He stated that on the afternoon of November 24, 2004, he went to a tattoo shop in Bel Alton that was run by his friend Shawn Myers, who also was friends with the appellant. The appellant was at the store. Chaney overheard Myers and the appellant planning a robbery to get money for the tattoo shop. He did not hear the details because he walked “right back out” of the shop.

Chaney waited outside the shop for a couple of hours while Myers finished some tattoos. At some point the appellant left. When Myers was finished, he and Chaney drove to Bennigan’s. Chaney did not remember whose car they took.

At Bennigan’s, Myers talked to Mader, who was bartending. Chaney did not overhear the full conversation, but “heard something about money.” Chaney had seen Mader at Bennigan’s before. About two hours later, around 1:00 a.m. on November 25, Chaney went outside to smoke a cigarette. Myers joined him, and they both sat in the car smoking. ⁴⁹³ While Chaney and Myers were waiting in the parking lot, someone driving a pickup truck dropped the appellant off at Bennigan’s.

Chaney and Myers saw the appellant enter Bennigan’s. About thirty minutes later, the appellant emerged and joined Chaney and Myers in the car. Five or ten minutes after that, Mader emerged, got in his car, and drove off. With Myers driving, Chaney in the back seat, and the appellant in the front passenger seat, the three followed Mader’s car.

Once on Smallwood Drive, Myers cut Mader off and forced him to stop by pulling in front of him. The appellant got out of the car and Chaney and Myers remained inside. Thirty or forty seconds later, Chaney heard a gunshot. Myers and Chaney immediately drove off, leaving the appellant behind.

Chaney did not see the appellant with a gun, and did not realize that a robbery was going to take place until he heard the gunshot. Chaney admitted that he told the police “several” lies when he first spoke to them in 2010. The lies included that he had left Bennigan’s before Myers did; that Myers had confessed to killing Mader; and that the appellant was not at Bennigan’s on the night of the murder. Chaney explained that he had lied because Myers had threatened to kill him and his family, and he was afraid of retaliation.

Chaney was not charged in connection with Mader’s murder. The investigating officers told him they were not interested in him. Chaney understood that to mean he would not be charged if he cooperated with the State. Shawn Myers testified for the State as well, offering a different account of the night of the murder. 2 According to Myers, he went to Bennigan’s between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. on November 24, 2004, after having Thanksgiving dinner with his family.

He frequented Bennigan’s about once a week and knew Mader as a bartender there. Myers did not recall speaking with Mader about money that evening. Around 2:00 ⁴⁹⁴ a.m. (on November 25), Myers called Chaney, who was not at the bar, to ask for a ride home.

After Chaney arrived, the appellant approached Myers in the parking lot and asked for a ride. Myers had never met the appellant before, and told him he would have to ask Chaney, because it was Chaney’s car. Chaney agreed, and the three left Bennigan’s. Myers was driving, the appellant was in the front passenger seat, and Chaney was seated in the back.

Myers testified that he did not think they were following anyone. After they had been driving on Smallwood Drive for a few minutes, the appellant asked Myers to pull the car to the side of the road. Myers testified that the appellant seemed “agitated” and “irate.” After Myers pulled the car over, the appellant got out and Chaney moved from the back seat to the front passenger seat. Thirty to forty-five seconds later, Myers “heard a sound like glass breaking” and Chaney said “let’s get out of here.” Myers then drove off.

Other witnesses for the State testified about the events of the night in question. Jason Lormore, a friend of Mader and a former bartender at Bennigan’s, was at Bennigan’s that night. In 2010, he was shown a photograph of the appellant and identified him as someone he frequently saw at Bennigan’s and who was sitting at the bar on the night of the murder. Jamie Hyfantis, also a friend of Mader, was working as a cocktail waitress at Bennigan’s that night.

In 2011, she was shown a photograph of the appellant and identified him as a regular customer at Bennigan’s who was there on the night of the murder. Two other bartenders who shared a shift with Mader that night testified that they saw Mader leave in his car around 2:30 a.m., and that there were other cars in the parking lot at the time. Caesar Casiano, an off-duty detective who lived close to the scene of the crime testified that he was driving home around 2:50 a.m. on November 25, 2004, when he heard a gunshot followed by a crash. He drove around his neighborhood for a few minutes and spotted a car crashed on Smallwood Drive.

Others, including one Jessica Scheyder, already had stopped ⁴⁹⁵ at the scene. Casiano and Scheyder each testified that they observed Mader slumped over the steering wheel of his car with a gunshot wound to the head. Michael Cassidy was the appellant’s friend and former neighbor in a trailer park in Waldorf. Cassidy testified that at 3:00 a.m. on November 25, 2004, he received a telephone call from the appellant, who said he was stranded and needed a ride.

About a half hour later, Cassidy and his then girlfriend, Sharon Sams, picked up the appellant at a Mobil gas station on St. Patrick’s Drive, and took him back to their house. 3 Sams also testified, corroborating Cassidy’s story. According to Sams, the appellant was upset when they picked him up. He was complaining that he and his girlfriend had fought, and that she had kicked him out of their house. Adrian Smith, Michael Cassidy’s stepfather, also testified for the State.

Adrian Smith and the appellant were housed in neighboring cells at the Charles County Detention Center. The two would speak through an air vent. According to Smith, the appellant told him he shot someone during an attempted robbery. The appellant gave him two different versions of the events.

In the first, the appellant and “his girl” were “looking for some pills.” He dropped her off somewhere, picked up someone else, and then went somewhere and “a[n] altercation happened,” after which “the people that he was with left him.” In the second, the appellant and some others “went to rob somebody,” and an “altercation happened and they left him at the spot and he had to call [Cassidy] to come and pick him up.” Smith testified that, in both versions of the story, three people were involved in the robbery; the appellant “was the person that got out of the car and went to the person”; the appellant was the one who “shot” the person; and the appellant called Cassidy to pick him up. Smith testified that, at some point, the appellant also “mentioned Bennigan’s” and asked him to urge Cassidy “not ⁴⁹⁶ to come to court” to testify, or to limit his testimony. Smith also testified that the appellant said: “[S]hot I did, two in the head, brain matter in the left.... I beat the charge, got a stet dock.” 4 On July 12, 2011, Smith informed the Charles County Sheriffs Office about what the appellant had told him.

After Adrian Smith’s testimony, the State played a recording of a jailhouse telephone call placed by the appellant to an unidentified female on May 15, 2011. In the call, the appellant mentions speaking with Adrian Smith through the vent and says that Smith told him that Cassidy was “running around” telling people he was “State’s evidence,” and “would talk to the lawyer or investigator.” When the State rested its case-in-chief, the appellant moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts. The court denied the motion. The appellant did not call any witnesses or produce any evidence.

He renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again denied. The jury deliberated for approximately an hour and a half and returned verdicts of guilty on all counts. We shall include additional facts as necessary to our discussion. DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the Evidence The appellant contends the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain any of his convictions.

He offers a number of reasons: the testimony of Chaney and Myers was inherently unreliable because they were accomplices, had “ample reason to lie,” and gave accounts that were inconsistent; because Chaney and Myers were accomplices, their testimony required adequate corroboration by other evidence, and there was not ⁴⁹⁷ adequate corroborating evidence, so their testimony should not have been considered; the corroborating evidence that existed was unreliable; the testimony of Kevin Smith and Adrian Smith was “inherently problematic” because they were “jailhouse informants” who were motivated by self-interest; the identifications by Lormore and Hyfantis placing him at Bennigan’s on the night of the murder took place too long after the night in question to be reliable; the testimony of Cassidy and Sams about picking him up in the early morning hours after the murder was inadequate to place him in the vicinity of the crime or in the company of the perpetrators; and there was no evidence showing that he ever was in possession of a weapon, or that a handgun was used in the shooting. The State responds that the appellant failed to preserve two of his sufficiency arguments: that there was legally insufficient evidence of corroboration of the testimony of Chaney and Myers, and that there was legally insufficient evidence to sustain the handgun charge. The State further responds that, even if the appellant’s arguments were preserved, the evidence was legally sufficient to support all of his convictions. In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, on that evidence, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 1. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony. Ordinarily, a non-jurisdictional issue is not preserved for appellate review if it was not raised in or decided by the lower court. Md. Rule 8-131(a); see, e.g., McDonald v. State, 141 Md.App. 371, 376 , 785 A.2d 836 (2001).

Moreover, we only will review a question of legal sufficiency of the evidence “ ‘for the reasons given by [the defendant] in his motion for judgment of acquittal.’ ” Taylor v. State, 175 Md.App. 153, 159 , 926 ⁴⁹⁸ A.2d 805 (2007) (quoting Whiting v. State, 160 Md.App. 285, 308 , 863 A.2d 1017 (2004)). Under Rule 4-324(a), a defendant who moves for judgment of acquittal must “state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted.” When a defendant only argues a generality, he does not preserve for review more particularized insufficiency arguments that could have been made but were not. Taylor, 175 Md.App. at 159-60 , 926 A.2d 805 . Here, at the close of the State’s case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts asserting that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the first degree murder count, counsel argued that the State had failed to “prove a prima facie case” because the State’s witnesses “disavowed any knowledge or awareness of the purpose for which they contend [the appellant] committed this offense” and their testimony “ha[s] been so directly at odds.” On the armed robbery count, counsel argued that there was no evidence to show agreement, attempt, or premeditation to commit robbery. On the handgun count, counsel asserted that [the State has] not proven necessarily that the ... firearm in this case was a handgun. They have provided evidence that would permit one to conclude among the possibilities that it could have been, but ... there was no handgun recovered. And, therefore, we would submit that the evidence is insufficient on that basis to send the matter to the jury.

As to all counts, defense counsel argued that “just generally, ... the State ... has failed to make out a prima facie ease as to each and every element ... as to each and every offense.” In his renewed motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence, defense counsel “adopt[ed] and incorporated] the arguments made at the end of the State’s case.” The record reflects that the appellant did not assert in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal that Myers and Chaney were accomplices and that evidence to corroborate their testimony was lacking and that, without their testi ⁴⁹⁹ mony, the evidence was legally insufficient to convict. Indeed, the approach the appellant took was completely the contrary. He asked the court to give the B version of Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction [MPJI-Cr] 3:11 on the evidentiary value of the testimony of an accomplice. Under that instruction, the jurors first decide whether a particular witness was an accomplice at all, and then, if the witness has been found to be an accomplice, decide whether the accomplice’s testimony was corroborated. 5 Thus, the accomplice corroboration facet of the appellant’s sufficiency argument not only is unpreserved, it was waived.

Even if the accomplice testimony argument were preserved and were not waived, it lacks merit. The jurors reasonably could have found that neither Myers nor Chaney were accomplices. And, if the jurors found that they (or either of them) were accomplices, their testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence adduced at trial. Not much in the way of evidence corroborative of the accomplice’s testimony has been required by our cases.

We ⁵⁰⁰ have, however, consistently held the view that while the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient in itself to convict, it must relate to material facts tending either (1) to identify the accused with the perpetrators of the crime or (2) to show the participation of the accused in the crime itself. If with some degree of cogency the corroborative evidence tends to establish either of these matters, the trier of fact may credit the accomplice’s testimony even with respect to matters as to which no corroboration was adduced. Woods v. State, 315 Md. 591, 616-17 , 556 A.2d 236 (1989) (quoting Brown v. State, 281 Md. 241, 244 , 378 A.2d 1104 (1977)). Kevin Smith testified that the appellant gave a detailed account of his involvement in Mader’s murder, including that he and another man planned a robbery, and trailed Mader after he left Bennigan’s, that he approached Mader’s car with a gun after it stopped, and that he shot Mader after Mader tried to flee.

Adrian Smith testified that the appellant confessed to approaching a person in a car and shooting him in the course of a planned robbery that went awry. Lormore and Hyfantis identified the appellant as having been present at Bennigan’s on the night of the murder. Cassidy and Sams testified that they picked up the appellant in the vicinity of the crime scene within a few hours after the shooting. All of this, among other evidence, tended to corroborate the firsthand accounts of Myers and Chaney. 2.

The Handgun Charges. With regard to the handgun charges, we disagree with the State that the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions of those charges was not preserved. The record reveals that defense counsel made a particularized argument about the sufficiency of the evidence to support those charges (a handgun was merely “among the possibilities,” and “there was no handgun recovered”). ⁵⁰¹ The appellant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the handgun charges because there was no evidence that he was ever in possession of a weapon, or that a handgun was used in the shooting. He is incorrect.

Md.Code (2002, 2012 Repl.Vol.), section 4-201(c) of the Criminal Law Article defines a handgun as “a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.” A “weapon’s identity as a handgun can be established by testimony or by inference,” as opposed to “tangible evidence in the form of the weapon.” Wilder v. State, 191 Md.App. 319, 338 , 991 A.2d 172 (2010). Kevin Smith testified that the appellant told him that he was carrying a gun, approached Mader’s car with the gun in hand, shot Mader, and buried the gun behind a building. Adrian Smith testified that the appellant told him — in both versions of the story — that he was the one who got out of the car, approached “the person,” and shot him. Chaney claimed that he heard a gunshot thirty to forty seconds after the appellant exited the car.

Based upon this evidence, rational jurors could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed and used a firearm. Moreover, the jurors reasonably could have concluded that the firearm was a handgun for the same reason the trial judge gave in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal on the handgun charges: the parties had entered into a stipulation, which was admitted into evidence, that the bullet retrieved from Mader’s car could have been discharged from two specific types of pistols, among others. In addition, the fact that no one saw the appellant holding a gun at a time when he must have been in possession of a gun supported a reasonable inference that the appellant was in possession of a gun that was capable of being concealed. 3. Other Sufficiency Arguments.

None of the arguments the appellant advanced regarding sufficiency have any merit either. They all amount to ⁵⁰² nothing more than taking issue with the weight and credibility determinations made by the jury. It is “the jury’s task to resolve any conflicts in the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses.” Allen v. State, 158 Md.App. 194, 251 , 857 A.2d 101 (2004). In so doing, the jury “can accept all, some, or none of the testimony of a particular witness.” Id.

It is not a proper sufficiency argument to maintain that the jurors should have placed less weight on the testimony of certain witnesses or should have disbelieved certain witnesses. Here, the jurors were presented with evidence that, if credited, was legally sufficient to support a finding of each element of each crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.

II

The Scope of Cross-Examination The appellant contends the trial court erred by prohibiting him from using evidence of prior convictions and bad acts to impeach witnesses Shawn Myers, Kevin Smith, and Adrian Smith. He maintains that these errors were not harmless, and require reversal. “The scope of cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Pantazes v. State, 376 Md. 661, 681 , 831 A.2d 432 (2003). We therefore review the trial court’s decisions for abuse of discretion. Id. “Whether there has been an abuse of discretion depends on the particular circumstances of each individual case.” Id.

For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of impeachment questioning during cross-examination. 1. Impeachment of Shawn Myers. At trial, defense counsel sought permission of the court to impeach Myers with a prior conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. The following colloquy ensued: [PROSECUTOR]: I don’t see how that’s impeachable. ⁵⁰³ THE COURT: I don’t see that is [sic], involves the kind of moral turpitude "with which we are concerned here.

THE COURT: No, I don’t think you should, no, I’m not going to allow you to go into that. [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: All right, I’m barred from asking is he’s ... THE COURT: Not just because you have enough other stuff but, but I don’t think that’s impeachable material as such. I really don’t. The trial judge also prohibited defense counsel from eliciting the fact that Myers was on the registry, explaining “you’ve got enough dirt without that on this guy.” The judge acknowledged that defense counsel already had mentioned that information in opening statement.

Subsection (a) of Rule 5-609 provides, in relevant part, that a witness’s credibility may be attacked with evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, “but only if (1) the crime was an infamous crime or other crime relevant to the witness’s credibility and (2) the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the witness or the objecting party.” Also, subsection (b) of that rule states that “[e]vidence of a conviction is not admissible ... if a period of more than 15 years has elapsed since the date of the conviction.” Thus, under Rule 5-609, “the universe of convictions that can be used to impeach a witness’s credibility, is limited to ‘infamous crimes’ (common law felonies and the common law crimen falsi) and crimes that are relevant to the witness’ credibility.” Washington v. State, 191 Md.App. 48, 82 , 990 A.2d 549 (2010) (internal citation omitted) (citing State v. Westpoint, 404 Md. 455, 478 , 947 A.2d 519 (2008)). “Infamous crimes include treason, common law felonies, and other offenses classified generally as crimen falsi.” State v. Giddens, 335 Md. 205, 213 , 642 A.2d 870 (1994). Crimen falsi include “crimes in the nature of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, false pretense, or any other offense ⁵⁰⁴ involving some element of deceitfulness, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing on the witness’s propensity to testify truthfully.” Id. at 213 n. 5, 642 A.2d 870 . The appellant does not argue that the crime of failure to register as a sex offender is an “infamous crime.” He argues that the crime shows a lack of trustworthiness, and therefore bears on credibility. Whether a crime “bears upon credibility is a matter of law.” State v. Giddens, supra, at 213 , 642 A.2d 870 .

In determining whether a crime bears upon credibility, we look to the elements of the crime itself. In Westpoint, 404 Md. at 484 , 947 A.2d 519 , the Court of Appeals explained: [I]n order for a crime to be admissible for impeachment, the crime itself, by its elements, must clearly identify the prior conduct of the witness that tends to show he is unworthy of belief. Moreover, a crime tends to show that the offender is unworthy of belief if the perpetrator lives a life of secrecy and engages in dissembling in the course of [the crime], being prepared to say whatever is required by the demands of the moment, whether the truth or a lie. (Alteration in original; internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) Md.Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol., 2013 Supp.), section 11-721 of the Criminal Procedure Article provides, in relevant part: Prohibited act. — A registrant may not knowingly fail to register, knowingly fail to provide the notice required under § 11-705 of this subtitle, knowingly fail to provide any information required to be included in a registration statement described in § 11-706 of this subtitle, or knowingly provide false information of a material fact as required by this subtitle.[ 6 ] Thus, to be guilty of the crime of failing to register, a registrant, ie., a person who is required to register as a sex offender, must knowingly fail to do so. “Knowingly” means ⁵⁰⁵ that the registrant acts with knowledge, ie., that he knows that he must register as a sex offender but does not do so.

No Maryland case has addressed whether a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender is a crime that tends to show the witness is unworthy of belief. 7 The appellant relies upon Tristan v. State, 393 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.App.2012), in which the defendant was convicted of indecent exposure. At trial, the defendant testified on his own behalf. The prosecu ⁵⁰⁶ tor sought to impeach him with a prior conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. The trial court permitted the impeachment.

On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the prior conviction for failure to register as a sex offender did not bear on his character for truthfulness, and therefore