Horton v. State

MEREDITH, J. Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Ricky Horton, appellant, was found guilty of a number of charges arising from two separate shooting incidents that took place on January 13, 2013. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms, plus ninety years. In this appeal, appellant challenges two evidentiary rulings. He also asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to give one of his requested jury instructions, and erred in considering impermissible matters when imposing the sentences.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On appeal, appellant asks this Court to review the following questions, which we have reordered: 1. Did the trial court err in allowing into evidence Tia Grannison’s prior consistent statement? 2. Did the trial court err in allowing the prosecutor to impermissibly cross-examine appellant? 3. Did the trial court err in refusing to propound a jury instruction on the testimony of an accomplice? 4.

Did the trial court rely on an impermissible sentencing consideration? For the reasons stated herein, we perceive no reversible error, and affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the early morning hours of January 13, 2013, two couples — Sean Rhodes and his girlfriend, Shanelle Hopkins, along ³⁸⁶ with Rudy Hyman and his girlfriend, Joy Darden — were at an after-hours club in Baltimore City called 007s. When the group left that club, they went to another after-hours club on North Avenue called Rasta’s.

This foursome was unaware that they had been noticed by the appellant and his group while they were at 007s. Appellant was also visiting clubs during the early morning in question. Appellant’s group included some unnamed associates and Tia Grannison, a woman with whom he had a relationship. According to the testimony of Grannison, appellant spotted Sean Rhodes at 007s and expressed his belief that Rhodes had, at some earlier time, shot one of appellant’s friends.

Appellant and his group followed Sean Rhodes’s group to Rasta’s. When the Rhodes group left Rasta’s, appellant walked up to Rhodes as he was getting into his car, and shot him in the head at close range. Rudy Hyman stepped in front of his sister — Shanelle Hopkins — and Hyman was then also shot. The evidence reflected that, at the time of the shootings, Tia Grannison and another associate of appellant’s were sitting in the car her group had taken to Rasta’s.

After the shots were fired, appellant ran back to the car. Grannison shouted to her co-occupant: “open the door,” and appellant and his friend then entered the back seat of the car, with Grannison seated in the middle of them. The car traveled a few blocks, and stopped in an alley. Appellant ordered everyone out of the car.

Appellant announced: “If you are not a Blood then you’ve got to die.” He then shot Grannison in the stomach and face. She played dead, and he fled. But she lived, and testified for the prosecution at appellant’s trial. Grannison testified that, on January 13, 2013, she went to 007s with the appellant, whom she knew as “Purple.” She and appellant had known each other for “a month or two,” and had a relationship she described as “friendly” and “somewhat” romantic.

Once they arrived at 007s, appellant met up with some of his friends, whose names Grannison once knew but ³⁸⁷ she claimed to have forgotten by the time of trial. Grannison first saw Sean Rhodes outside of 007s, while she was sitting in a car with appellant and his friends. She heard appellant say that Sean Rhodes had shot appellant’s friend, and appellant said he wanted to shoot Sean Rhodes. Appellant and his group followed the Rhodes group to Rasta’s.

Appellant drove and parked around the corner from the club. Appellant and one of his friends got out of the car. Grannison described what happened next: Q. [BY THE STATE]: Did you hear any gunshots? A. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: Yes.

Q. Do you know how many? A. No. Q. What, if anything, happened next? A. Then they came back to the car. Q. Who’s they?

A. Purple and his friend. Q. And then what happened? A. He got in the back seat and the other boy got in the other side. Q. And where were you seated?

A. In the middle. Q. And then what, if anything, happened? A. And then they pulled off. Q. Do you know where they went?

A. I’m not sure of the street name. Q. Did it take a while to get there, if you know? A. No. Q. Then what happened? A. Then he said, Come on.

Everybody go get in my car. Q. Whose car was he referring to, if you know? A. His car, Purple’s car. ³⁸⁸ Q. The car that he came to North Avenue with was not his car? A. No. Q. And then what happened?

A. He waited until they pulled off and then— Q. Are you all right? A. Mm-hmm. He waited until they pulled off and he said, if you’re not— Q. Did you get out? A. Yeah.

Q. Who got out with you? A. Purple and this other boy. Q. Ms. Grannison, can you just tell us what you heard from Purple? A. He said, um, leave no witnesses to the scene if you’re not a Blood.

If you’re not a Blood then you’ve got to die. Q. And then what happened? A. And then he shot me. Q. Where did he shoot you?

A. In my stomach and my face. Q. Is that all? What happened next? A. I mean, he was going to shoot me again, but I guess the gun got jammed— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Overruled. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: — and—the gun got jammed and he ran.

I laid there like I was dead. I got up and ran the other way. I ran on somebody’s door and I fell on their, I fell in their doorway. [BY THE STATE]: And then what happened? A. I don’t remember. ³⁸⁹ Q. Do you remember telling anybody at the hospital who did this to you?

A. I think it was the police. Q. And what did you say? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Overruled. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: I told them Purple shot me. Grannison identified appellant as her assailant when the police interviewed her at the hospital on January 16. Although her jaw was wired shut and she could not speak, she was able to put an “X” next to appellant’s photo in a photo array presented to her by detectives.

On February 6, after her discharge from Shock Trauma, she gave police a recorded statement identifying appellant as the person who shot her. She also identified him in open court, and pointed him out for the jury in surveillance video from a local business. Granni-son was consistent in stating that appellant was the person who shot her. Appellant testified in his defense at trial.

He agreed that he had been in a group partying and clubbing that night, and that he had been at 007s and Rasta’s. He agreed that it was him depicted in the surveillance footage from which Grannison identified him. But he denied knowing Sean Rhodes or Rudy Hyman, and claimed that, when they were shot, he was standing on the sidewalk, smoking a cigarette. He testified that he heard the gunshots and ran back to the car where Grannison was waiting.

He also claimed to know nothing about how Tia Grannison ended up getting shot. He gave this account of what took place when he and his group were outside Rasta’s, near the intersection of North Avenue and Smallwood Street: [BY APPELLANT]: I was standing on North Avenue and Smallwood Bottle Bar [sic], smoking a cigarette, taking a cigarette break and I heard gun shots. And when I heard ³⁹⁰ gun shots I got scared and I ran to the car and jumped in the car. Me and my friend, we ran back to the car and we jumped in the car.

And then we left. And as I left, as we left it was just enough for me that night, it was just too much that night, gun shots, partying and all that, and I wanted to leave and I just told dudes to drop me off where my car was at, and that’s where I got dropped off and I left. And I left Tia with them guys because Tia wanted to, basically they was going to give Tia a ride home. The jury convicted appellant of first-degree murder of Sean Rhodes; using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence; wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun; conspiracy to murder Sean Rhodes; first-degree assault of Rudy Hyman; using a firearm in the commission of that crime; wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, as to the assault on Mr. Hyman; attempted murder of Tia Grannison; using a firearm in the commission of that crime; and wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm in the commission of that crime.

It had also been stipulated that appellant was prohibited from being in possession of a firearm, and he was found guilty of being a prohibited person in possession. On April 14, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to two consecutive life sentences, plus ninety years. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Tia Grannison’s prior consistent statement Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to play for the jury a recording of the investigating officers’ February 6 interview of Tia Grannison.

The recording was played, over appellant’s objection, during the State’s redirect examination of Grannison. Leading up to the trial court’s ruling that the recording could be played, the following transpired. ³⁹¹ On direct examination during the State’s case, Tia Granni-son testified to the following: she was with her friend “Pur ple” — ie., appellant — during the early morning hours of January 13; some friends of Purple’s whose names she did not recall at the time of trial were also with them; she overheard Purple say that Sean Rhodes had shot Purple’s friend, and Purple therefore wanted to shoot Sean Rhodes; the whole group with Purple followed Sean Rhodes’s group to Rasta’s, and Purple and one of his friends then exited the car; she then heard gunshots; Purple and his friend ran to, and reentered, the car; the group then drove to an alley; the other men left; Purple turned to Grannison and said, “Leave no witnesses to the scene if you’re not a Blood. If you’re not a Blood then you’ve got to die”; and Purple then shot her in the face and stomach and ran away. She testified that she was interviewed by police on January 16, while she was still in the hospital with her jaw wired shut.

She was nevertheless able to identify appellant from a photo array on that date. The photo array procedure was videotaped, and the videotape and the photo array were both admitted into evidence, without objection. The State also played surveillance video from a business near the shootings of Rhodes and Hyman, and Grannison pointed out for the jury the vehicle in which she and Purple and his friends arrived at Rasta’s, and, in a later clip, she pointed out appellant falling down trying to get back in the car after she heard gunshots. Appellant’s counsel began cross-examination by questioning Ms. Grannison about the recorded statement she gave police on February 6 — the same statement which he argues on appeal, should not have been admitted into evidence. 1 Appellant’s cross-examination included questions that suggested Grannison was not telling the complete truth about the extent of her prior knowledge of, and participation in, the shootings ³⁹² of Sean Rhodes and Rudy Hyman.

The questions suggested that she was not being totally forthcoming regarding the identities of appellant’s associates who were present on the evening of the shooting, and further suggested that, in light of the fact that she had never been charged with any crime, Grannison may have been promised some deal in return for her testimony against appellant. A representative excerpt of the cross-examination of Grannison is as follows: [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: All right. Ma’am, you were interviewed by Detective Robert Ross on February 7, 2013, [sic] correct? [BY TIA GRANNISON]: Yes. Q. And your memory was better at that time, when it was closer to the incident, wasn’t it?

A. Yes. Q. Ma’am, isn’t it true that at the time you gave the statement to Detective Ross you said you never saw Purple shoot anybody? A. Yes, I said I didn’t see him shoot anybody. Q. Okay.

So then what you said on direct examination, that you saw Purple shoot the guy is not true, correct? [BY THE STATE]: Objection. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: I didn’t say that.[ 2 ] [BY THE COURT]: That’s answered. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: You said Purple shot him, right? [BY TIA GRANNISON]: Yes. Q. You didn’t see him shoot him, correct? A. Mm-hmm. Q. So you were parked, actually, around the corner from where Rasta’s was, correct? ³⁹³ A. Yes.

Q. All right, and then the person that we see running back to the car and slipping, that you say is Purple, that’s at 5:51, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So between 5:26 and 5:51 the car had turned around and you were sitting in the car, right?

A. Yes. Q. And it was you and one other boy, correct? A. And there was another boy in the front. Q. Okay so there were two in the car with you and two had gotten out, correct?

A. Yes. Q. And there was also another car that was with you, isn’t that correct? That’s what you told Detective Ross? A. Yes.

Q. You told Detective Ross there was another car, and that was the car that was behind you, right? A. I think— Q. You have to answer. A. I think so. Q. Okay.

And, in fact, there was a third car, isn’t that correct? The one that was parked across the street, on the corner? A. The little gold car? Q. The little gold car.

A. I’m not sure if it was with us. Q. Okay, well, what time did you leave 007s? A. I’m not sure what time it was. Q. Okay, but you were there partying that night, right?

A. Yes. Q. And you say you were with Purple and his friends, correct? ³⁹⁴ A. Yes. Q. And you had hung out with Purple before? A. Yes.

Q. And you knew his friends, correct? A. Yeah, but I didn’t know their names. I mean, I forgot their names. Q. But you knew them by their street names, correct?

A. I forgot. Q. You forgot? Okay. So sitting in court today you forgot who those people were?

A. No, I’ve forgot their names. Q. So you were never asked who any of the other individuals were in the car that you were in, which included Purple and three other guys, correct? A. Mm-hmm. * * * Q. All right, and you remember Detective Ross asking you, on February [6]th, if you knew any of the other boys? And, Ms. Grannison, when Detective Ross asked you about who the other boys were in the car or involved with this, you didn’t know, is that correct?

A. Yes. Hi Hi * Q. Ma’am, did you — were you ever asked — did you ever point out anybody else, or did you ever identify anybody else who was in your group? A. Yeah, I think I did. I don’t remember though.

Q. Okay. A. I don’t remember. I just remember Purple because he’s the one that shot me. ³⁹⁵ Q. Would it surprise you that in your statement, that was recorded with Detective Ross, that you never said that Purple said he was going to shoot this guys [sic], it was always they said they were going to shoot this guy? A. It was like — say that again?

Q. In your recorded statement to Detective Ross, isn’t it true that you always said, they said they said they were going to shoot this guy? A. Mm-hmm. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes.

Q. You never said that Purple said he was going to shoot this guy, isn’t that right? A. Because when we was in the car— Q. Ma’am, that’s a yes or no question. [BY THE STATE]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Well let her answer the question, Counsel. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: I can answer? [BY THE COURT]: You can answer the question, yes, ma’am. [BY TIA GRANNISON]: When we was in the car, it was like — they was like, we’re going to shoot this guy. Purple— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: So what did you think you were getting in the car to do? Ms. Grannison, what did you think you were getting in the car to go — where did you think you were going when you got into the car after 007’s?

A. I don’t know, because when we always leave the club— go ahead and go or something. Q. I’m sorry, what was that? [BY THE COURT]: I’m sorry, say it again, ma’am. We can’t understand— A. I said, we used to go hang out. ³⁹⁶ Q. Okay. Didn’t you testify on direct examination that they were talking about shooting this man, isn’t that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And then you got into a car and went there? A. No, but I didn’t know until— Q. Correct me then. You didn’t know that they were going to — they weren’t talking about that beforehand?

A. When they was in the — when he was leaving out — I mean, his friend grabbed me and said, come on. We gotta go. I was like, where Purple? He’s in the car.

So when we got in the car, then they started talking about it. Q. Okay. Do you remember saying that you were scared— A. Yes. Q. —when you were in the car?

A. Yes. Q. But you told the detective that you were okay because you were with Purple, right? A. I said that because when I said I was scared, Purple turned around and was like, what. I was like, nothing.

Then I guess his friend next to me was, like, you gonna be okay. So I felt like I’m okay because I’m with Purple and nothing happened, — never, ever happened with us. So— Q. So you knew, based on what you just said, that — where the car was going, correct, where the group was going, correct? A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Because you were scared, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay, and you didn’t see anything happen because you were not up on North Avenue, correct? A.

(No response.) ³⁹⁷ Q. Is that correct? A. I didn’t see nothing happen because we was in the car. Q. Right, you were in the car. You never got out of the ear, correct?

A. Yes. Q. And you never once said I’m getting out of here. I’m leaving. I don’t want to have any part of this.

Is that correct? A. No, because I was scared. Q. But you were with Ricky, right? A. Mm-hmm.

Q. So does that mean that you were scared of the other people? Isn’t that true? A. Yes. Q. Ma’am, I can’t hear you.

You’re going to have to speak up. A. Yes. Q. Ma’am, in your statement to Detective Ross you said that the detectives told you that it was Purple who shot that man, isn’t that correct? A. No, because I — they didn’t say that.

I mean, yes, they told— [BY THE COURT]: I can’t hear you.[Appellant’s counsel], I’m not sure I understand the question. Could you ask it again? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Yes. Was it the detective who told you that Purple shot that man? [BY TIA GRANNISON]: No. Yes. [BY THE COURT]: Ma’am, we can’t hear you. ³⁹⁸ A. I think it’s yes. [BY THE COURT]: You said yes? I can’t hear you.

Ma’am, what is your answer? Do you know? A. Yes. [BY COUNSEL]: Ma’am, you’re not charged -with anything, are you? [BY TIA GRANNISON]: No. After the conclusion of appellant’s cross-examination of Ms. Grannison, the State asked Grannison on redirect if she remembered giving a recorded statement to police on February 6, and she replied that she did. The State then proposed to play for the jury the recording of that statement, the transcript of which appellant had been using to cross-examine Grannison.

Appellant objected, and the parties approached for a bench conference, at which the following colloquy ensued: [BY THE COURT]: And the transcript that you [Mr. Defense Counsel] were using is the one from the same [February 6] statement with Detective Ross? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Yes. [BY THE COURT]: And that’s what the audio is? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: They provided that to me— [BY THE STATE]: That’s what the audio is, and that’s the one I intend on playing. [BY THE COURT]: Okay, and so you’re saying that he can’t play her testimony, or her statement? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: I don’t think he can. [BY THE COURT]: You don’t think he can? Why? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Because it’s hearsay. [BY THE COURT]: Well that’s a good answer. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Yeah. [BY THE STATE]: It’s the wrong answer though. Your Honor, under 5— ³⁹⁹ [BY THE COURT]: No, it is hearsay, but it may be an exception. [BY THE STATE]: Yes. [BY THE COURT]: That’s the problem. [BY THE STATE]: Under 5-802.1(b) it’s a prior consistent statement being offered after the allegation of fabrication or inducement or influence[ 3 ] [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Are you planning to play the whole tape or you playing— [BY THE STATE]: Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah. [BY THE COURT]: What has been — what are you— [BY THE STATE]: He elicited (inaudible).

Now, granted, it was after much badgering that Detective Ross told her who shot this person. That it was Purple who shot. [BYTHE COURT]: Okay. [BY THE STATE]: Additionally, that she couldn’t recall, remember the names of these other, that she was a willing participant and there’s the insinuation that she had not yet been charged for these crimes, all go to the insinuation that this statement, the prior consistent statement was fabricated. [BY THE COURT]: Okay. Counsel? It says that, I’m looking at it, “A prior statement by a witness” — the same one we were talking about before.

So now I have the witness on the stand, and this is a statement that is consistent with the declarant’s testimony. “If the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of fabrication or improper influence or motive,” ⁴⁰⁰ and what [the State] is indicating is, because there’s been, based on your cross examination, that you have implied that she’s not charged,— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. [BY THE COURT]: — she’s not here, and therefore she must be making this up. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. [BY THE COURT]: So that’s why he’s saying it’s an exception to the Hearsay Rule that he can play this tape. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay, but that would have to be a consistent statement, correct? [BY THE COURT]: Consistent with what she’s testifying to. Consistent with her— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Yeah, buN- [BY THE COURT]: — testimony now. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: I just cross examined her based on the transcript, about the inconsistencies in her testimony here. [BY THE COURT]: But I don’t think they were inconsistencies that you testified — you got her — what inconsistency did you get her to testify to? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: She said that he shot— that Purple shot him and then — remember, I had objected to that because of the foundation, but you said that that’s really not relevant it’s I have to figure out how to say why she knows that. In the transcript, or in the recorded statement the detective asks her if anybody told her anything, or what to say about that. That’s what I cross examined her on.

That’s what he’s specifically referring to. [BY THE COURT]: But inconsistent would be that if she’s sitting here today and she’s saying that Purple shot the man. I mean, I don’t — she just said Purple shot him. Then inconsistent would be that if she said somewhere that Purple didn’t shoot him. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. ⁴⁰¹ [BY THE COURT]: It’s not inconsistent that she’s saying, well — if she said here today that no one told me that Purple shot the man— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. [BY THE COURT]: — and then you put in that someone did tell her that Purple shot the man, if she had said that— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. [BY THE COURT]: — that would be inconsistent. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay. [BY THE COURT]: But the fact that you are drawing out some certain things out of her doesn’t make it inconsistent. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Mm-hmm. [BY THE COURT]: She’s agreeing — she has agreed with you, for the most part, everything that you said that she said. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Right. [BY THE COURT]: So what Counsel is trying to do, based on your getting the concessions from her, that she did say those things— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Is to rehabilitate her with the— [BY THE COURT]: — that he gets an opportunity to play her statement, Because you have implied that she is making it up. [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: But he wants to play it in total, and I think there’s a lot — there’s hearsay statements in there that don’t come in to evidence, regardless. So— [BY THE COURT]: I don’t know what — is she saying that somebody else said something, other than the “they said,” “they said”? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: No. Well— [BY THE COURT]: Is there something else in there other than the they said they’re going to shoot him? [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: I don’t think so, Your Honor. ⁴⁰² [BY THE COURT]: So then what’s— [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: No. (Emphasis added.) At that point in the proceedings, a substantial portion of the statement of Tia Grannison recorded on February 6, 2013, was played for the jury, and the jury was provided a transcript to follow along while the recording played.

Notably absent from the argument appellant made to the trial court (quoted above) is any contention that, for the exception under Rule 5-802.1(b) to apply, the prior statement must have been made before the declarant developed any motive to fabricate, which is the sole argument appellant makes on appeal, citing, inter alia, Thomas v. State, 429 Md. 85, 106-07 , 55 A.3d 10 (2012), and Holmes v. State, 350 Md. 412, 424 , 712 A.2d 554 (1998). At trial, appellant argued that the statement could not be played because it was hearsay. When the State noted that the statement was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, namely Rule 5-802.1(b), appellant responded as quoted above. He did not argue, as he does now, that any statements made to police by Grannison after the crime would have been inadmissible because they were given after her involvement in the crime and therefore were statements made after she had a motive to fabricate.

This contention was not made at trial, and has not been preserved for appellate review.

II

Cross-examination of appellant Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State, during its cross-examination of appellant, to ask several questions about whether the prior witnesses against him were lying. See Hunter v. State, 397 Md. 580, 589 , 919 A.2d 63 (2007) (“it is impermissible, as a matter of law, for a witness to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness”); accord Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 277-78 , 539 A.2d 657 (1988) (“Whether a witness on the stand personally believes or disbelieves testimony of a previous witness is irrelevant, and questions to that effect are improper, either on direct or cross- ⁴⁰³ examination.” “Testimony from a witness relating to the credibility of another witness is to be rejected as a matter of law.”); Parker v. State, 189 Md.App. 474, 496-500 , 985 A.2d 72 (2009) (“As in Hunter, the ‘were-they-lying’ questions the prosecutor asked Parker [the defendant] were improper.”); Hall v. State, 107 Md.App. 684, 692 , 670 A.2d 962 (1996) (“Every witness is prohibited from testifying that, in his or her opinion, the testimony given by another witness is false.” (footnote omitted)); 6 Lynn McLain, Maryland Evidence (3d ed. 2013) § 701:6 (“The prosecution may not ask an accused whether he contends that the State’s witnesses are lying.”); Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook (4th ed. 2010) § 1303 (“Because nobody is competent to read anyone else’s mind, it is improper to ask a witness whether another witness was ‘lying.’ ”). The State responds that appellant’s argument regarding this issue is “mostly unpreserved.” The State points out that the court expressly overruled only one of his objections, and the appellant made no motions to strike any of the testimony about which he now complains. The State further asserts that any prejudice would have been minimal.

Although we conclude that appellant preserved an issue relative to asking a witness to comment on the credibility of testimony of other witnesses, we are persuaded that any error in this regard was harmless. a. Preliminary agreement? Appellant has characterized as impermissible four questions the State posed to him during the prosecutor’s cross examination. The first such question was asked after the prosecutor had asked a series of questions about the events that transpired prior to the shootings.

After appellant agreed with the prosecutor that acquaintances appellant knew as “Tim and Tia” were in the car with him when they stopped on Smallwood Street near the intersection with North Avenue, the prosecutor asked: [BY THE STATE]: So everything Ms. Grannison testified to, up until this point, has been true and accurate? ⁴⁰⁴ [BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY APPELLANT]: No. [BY THE COURT]: There’s your answer. (Emphasis added.) Although appellant argues in his brief that the above question was an impermissible request for appellant to comment on the credibility of a prior witness, it is clear when the question is read in context that the prosecutor was, at this point in the cross-examination, suggesting that appellant’s testimony was consistent with Grannison’s account of what transpired up to that point in the evening. See Tyner v. State, 417 Md. 611, 617 , 11 A.3d 824 (2011) (“we must consider not only precisely what the focal testimony was at trial, but also the context in which it was used”). Although it would have been preferable for the prosecutor to phrase the question in a manner that did not ask the appellant to agree that the prior witness’s testimony had been “true and accurate,” we fail to discern any prejudice to appellant flowing from the trial judge’s failure to sustain this objection. b.

Why would they lie? The second and third questions appellant challenges as impermissible came after the prosecutor asked a series of questions based upon Grannison’s testimony as to which appellant had given contrary testimony. The second and third questions appellant challenges did not specifically ask “did she lie?” but asked appellant what motive the prosecution’s witnesses would have to lie. The pertinent exchange on cross-examination was as follows: Q.[BY THE STATE] So Tia, a woman that you had relations for a couple of months, gets shot that morning.

Is that correct? A.[BY APPELLANT] I guess so. Q. But you didn’t do it? A. No. Q. You didn’t stand over Ms. Grannison with a gun and shoot her in the face, did you? ⁴⁰⁵ [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Overruled. [BY APPELLANT]: No, I would never hurt Tia.

I would never hurt anybody. [BY THE STATE]: Did you not tell her that “If you ain’t blood you’re going to die.” [BY APPELLANT]: I did not tell her that. Q. Did you not try to shoot her a third time but the gun jammed? [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Overruled. You can answer, Sir. [BY APPELLANT]: No, I never shot anybody. [BY THE STATE]: So help me understand, Mr. Horton. What motivation would Tia Grannison have to come into this courtroom, sit where you are and testify to this fabrication? [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: If he knows. [BY APPELLANT]: I have no idea.

Maybe Tia is scared. Maybe she was scared. Maybe she don’t want to tell on the people who told on her, so she using me for some sort of outlet. But I’m pretty sure Tia know I would never hurt her.

Tia knows that, and I’m sitting here today with my life on the line. I got to— [BY THE COURT]: Sustained, sustained, sustained. Next question. [BY THE STATE]: Mr. Horton, what motivation would [Shanelle] Hopkins have to come into this courtroom and identify you? [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: If you know. [BY APPELLANT]: I don’t know. ⁴⁰⁶ [BY THE STATE]: Are the same people that Tia’s concerned about the same people that [Shanelle] is concerned about? [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Sustained. [BY THE STATE]: Is this a conspiracy to get Ricky Horton? [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [BY THE COURT]: Sustained. (Emphasis added.) Although the italicized