Jackson v. State

ALPERT, Judge. At the centerpiece of this appeal is the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in precluding evidence of a lack of motive to rebut the evidence of motive introduced by the prosecution. A careful review of the law suggests that he did. At approximately 7:55 p.m. on November 16, 1989, someone firebombed the front of the Chong home, located near Fort Meade.

Although the front doorway was charred, the fire did not spread. After noticing the fire, the Chongs’ daughter, Sun Chong, went to the kitchen, located in the back of the house, and called the police. While on the phone, Sun Chong was struck in the chest by a nine millimeter bullet, fired through a window located at the back of the kitchen. Sun Chong died later that evening as a result of the gunshot wound.

As part of its case in chief, the prosecution offered evidence intended to show that appellant, who was a military police sergeant stationed at Fort Meade, had a motive for committing the arson and the murder. Specifically, the prosecution introduced the fact that appellant knew he was a suspect in the rape of Suk Chong, the mother of the deceased. Additionally, the prosecution showed that appellant knew that there was a military Article 32 hearing scheduled for November 27, 1989 to determine whether there was sufficient evidence against him to proceed with a general court martial. Although the prosecution was allowed to offer this evidence of motive, the trial court repeatedly precluded the defense from introducing evidence to show that appellant lacked motive, despite repeated proffers by counsel for the defense.

According to appellant, the defense would have shown that appellant was confident that the charge of rape would be dismissed at the outcome of the Article 32 hearing. Therefore, appellant argues, it would have been estab ⁴⁷⁹ lished that there was no motive for appellant to commit the arson and the murder. At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of Detective Ronald Bateman of the Anne Arundel County Homicide Unit, who arrived at the scene approximately forty-five minutes after the event and conducted the investigation of the crimes. Bateman testified that he observed that the brick underneath the picture window at the front of the house was charred, as were the outside wooden overhang and the inside second floor rafters.

The lower right-hand portion of the picture window was slightly cracked and melted. Bateman found pieces of broken glass on the shrubbery and lawn in front of the window. In the back of the house, Bateman found more broken glass and noticed that there was a single hole in the window. Beneath the window, a shell casing was discovered on the ground.

When the glass fragments found under the front window were reconstructed and parts of a label could be discerned, Bateman supervised and participated in the check of thirty-six liquor, grocery, and convenience stores in the surrounding areas of Fort Meade, Odenton, Severn, and Laurel, in order to find a similar bottle. A Giant Food store in Laurel that was within walking distance of the apartment Jackson shared with his girlfriend, Vanessa Finney, was the only store that carried a similar or identical bottle. The bottle was found to contain a forty-six ounce Tropicana Twister orange raspberry fruit drink. Bateman stated that when he interviewed Vanessa Finney, Jackson’s girlfriend, she gave him a similar bottle from her trash can.

Pursuant to his investigation, Bateman learned that the victim’s mother, Suk Chong, previously had accused Jackson of a crime against her. Bateman then questioned Jackson, who denied owning or shooting a nine millimeter pistol. Jackson further denied owning a long, dark coat, and claimed that he only had a long, dress blue military coat. Upon obtaining a search warrant for the apartment Jackson shared with Finney, Bateman found a box of nine millimeter bullets.

Moreover, when Jackson was arrested ⁴⁸⁰ on November 22, 1989, he was wearing a long, black dress coat. Bateman learned that the bullets found in the apartment had been manufactured on May 5, 1989 by the Winchester Company. Bateman traveled to Wilkes County, Georgia, to a gun store near the home of Jackson’s parents, in order to locate the origin of the gun. The proprietor of the Easy Pawn and Gun Store in Washington, Georgia, Charles Walker, testified that on July 21, 1989, he sold an X-Cam TA90 nine millimeter pistol to Frances Jackson, Jackson’s mother, in the presence of Jackson, who had picked out the gun, and another woman.

Bateman visited Jackson’s parents while he was in Georgia, and was shown the area in which Jackson and his father had practiced shooting the gun. Bateman found twenty-one nine millimeter shell casings that he then sent to the F.B.I. for testing. The shell casing found under the Chongs’ back window and the twenty-one casings found in the Jacksons’ yard were determined to have been fired by the identical firearm. Further evidence was presented that revealed that Jackson had purchased a nine millimeter pistol shoulder holster from a gun shop in Severn on July 31, 1989.

Other witnesses for the State included Pfc. Patrick A. Barry, a military police officer stationed at Fort Meade, who testified that while riding to a firing range with Jackson on November 2,1989, he had mentioned to Jackson that he was looking to purchase a nine millimeter gun. Jackson told Barry that he had one in his parents’ home in Georgia. A fire investigator with the Fire Marshal’s Office, Carlos Downs, opined that the fire at the Chong house had been set intentionally.

The fire’s perpetrator had ignited a container of highly flammable liquid — mostly gasoline — and tossed it against the front of the house. Gas chromotography tests established the presence of gasoline where the glass pieces were found. ⁴⁸¹ Felicia Bradham testified that a little before 8:00 p.m. on the evening of November 16, 1989, she had driven up to her ex-boyfriend’s house, which was located two houses away from the Chong residence. Her car lights were still on when she observed a black male wearing a long black coat walk about eight feet in front of her car. Bradham testified that the coat she saw that night was the same one that police officers later showed to her, namely, the one that Jackson was wearing when arrested.

Charles Schneider, who had been incarcerated at the Anne Arundel County Detention Center on Thanksgiving Day afternoon, 1989, testified that he had attended his bail review hearing with Jackson, and then was placed in a cell next to Jackson. According to Schneider, he overheard Jackson tell the others in his cell “something to the effect, ‘the bitch accused me of raping her and I showed her.’ ” The defense produced six witnesses who testified that they had seen Jackson at the barracks at Fort Meade between 7:00 and 8:30 p.m. during the party on the night of November 16, 1989. Although none of the witnesses continuously had been with Jackson during this time, they had seen him in the barracks throughout this time period. Counsel for the defense noted in his closing argument that the barracks were 3.9 miles away from the Chong home.

Jackson testified at length in his defense. He explained that he had purchased a nine millimeter gun and a box of cartridges for his father while on leave in Georgia. He and his father had done some target shooting in the backyard. The gun was stored in the house and he left the remaining bullets in the trunk of a car.

Jackson stated that he had purchased the shoulder holster to use in his army duties because the military police were beginning to use nine millimeter weapons. Jackson then described his actions during the G.I. party held at the barracks from 6:15 p.m. until approximately 8:30 p.m. on the night of November 16, 1989, the night of the firebombing. Jackson denied leaving the barracks during ⁴⁸² this time. He specifically denied firebombing the Chongs’ house and shooting Sun Chong.

The court precluded Jackson from testifying about the charges brought against him by Suk Chong. He was, however, permitted to describe his brother, James, who had been in the area in late April and early May, 1989. This evidence was produced for the purpose of establishing that Jackson’s brother could have been the one who committed the crimes. Lawrence Kerr, an attorney representing Jackson in the Article 32 hearing, and a major in the United States Army, testified that he was present when Bateman interviewed Jackson on November 17, 1989.

According to Kerr, there was no mention of a nine millimeter weapon during the interview. He stated that he asked Bateman and Detective Rzepkowski, the other investigator, questions regarding what type of weapon was involved; they responded that they were still investigating it. Kerr remembered that Jackson had been questioned about whether he owned a long, dark coat, and said that Jackson had replied that he had a long, dark, blue coat. Finally, Kerr said that when he told the investigators about Jackson’s alibi, Bateman “said that he would get around it.” Appellant had been charged with murder, arson, possession and use of a molotov cocktail, manufacture of an explosive device, two counts of handgun offenses, and two counts of obstruction of justice.

After a jury trial was held in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on April 26, 27, and 30 and May 1, 1990, Jackson was convicted of first degree murder and arson. On June 14, 1990, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, and thirty years imprisonment for the arson, to run consecutively. Appellant raises four issues on appeal: I. Did the trial court err in precluding appellant from showing a lack of motive by introducing evidence of the facts and outcome of another crime charged against appellant by the victim’s mother while permitting the ⁴⁸³ State to introduce evidence of the bare charge to supply a motive for these alleged offenses?

II

Did the trial court err (A) in instructing and allowing the jury to consider first degree felony murder and the theory that appellant could be found guilty as an accessory before the fact and (B) in failing to determine the basis for the first degree murder verdict?

III

Was the evidence presented sufficient to support the' convictions?

IV

Did the trial court commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the crime of arson, both as a substantive crime and as the basis for felony murder, and in failing to instruct the jury on accessory before the fact to arson? As we hold that the trial court did err in regard to the first issue, we shall reverse the judgments and remand the case for a new trial. We find no merit in appellant’s remaining arguments. Nevertheless, we shall address the second and third issues for the guidance of the trial court upon remand.

We shall not address the fourth issue, regarding jury instructions as to arson, as we trust that the court and counsel will recognize the need to promulgate any necessary instructions and will act accordingly. I. Appellant argues that Maryland case law requires that a defendant be allowed to offer evidence of lack of motive to rebut the prosecution’s evidence of motive. The State contends that this issue is not preserved for appeal because appellant failed to make a formal proffer at trial. This claim by the State is without merit. 1 Additionally, the State argues that the trial judge was fully within his discretion ⁴⁸⁴ when he found that appellant’s proposed evidence was irrelevant, and thus inadmissible.

The first question to ask is whether evidence of lack of motive is relevant. If it is relevant, then it must be determined whether the evidence is otherwise excludable under any of the categorical exclusions. If the evidence is relevant and not otherwise excludable, it must be determined whether excluding it in the instant case constituted reversible error. A. The Evidence is Relevant In Jacobs v. State, 45 Md.App. 634 , 415 A.2d 590 , cert. denied, 288 Md. 737 (1980), Judge Charles E. Moylan, Jr. summarized the goal of the Maryland law (and common law) of evidence: “[To] keep out all that might obscure the truth ... [and] allow in all that will further the search for truth.” Id. at 644, 415 A.2d 590 .

As in other states and under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the threshold question on the admissibility of evidence in Maryland is whether the proffered evidence is relevant. A fact is relevant if it “tends to establish or disprove a material fact.” Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498, 508 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985), cert. denied, 305 Md. 599 , 505 A.2d 856 (1986). On the other hand, “evidence which does not tend to establish or explain the facts and circumstances of the case is [irrelevant and thus] inadmissible.” Kennedy v. Crouch, 191 Md. 580, 585 , 62 A.2d 582 (1948). See also Wilson v. Morris, 317 Md. 284, 290-91 , 563 A.2d 392 (1989).

Clearly, the question of whether a given fact is “material,” and thus relevant, depends on the underlying facts of the case. “Evidence is material if it tends to establish a proposition that has legal significance to the litigation.” Paige v. Manuzak, 57 Md.App. 621, 632 , 471 A.2d 758 , cert. denied, 300 Md. 154 , 476 A.2d 722 (1984). In the instant case, the prosecution’s introduction of pending rape charges against appellant led to a strong inference that appellant had a motive for harming Suk ⁴⁸⁵