Matthews v. State

Kirk Matthews v. State of Maryland, Case No. 3280, September Term 2018. Opinion by Nazarian, J. EXPERT WITNESSES – RULE 5-702(3) – ANALYTICAL GAP UNBRIDGED Expert photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection testimony was unreliable, and failed to satisfy Maryland Rule 5-702(3), where the expert’s seemingly precise calculation of the suspect’s height failed to account for missing and potentially significant input variables. As a result, the analytical gap between the data available for reverse photogrammetry projections and the conclusion the expert offered to the jury remained unbridged, and the trial court erred by admitting the testimony over objection. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C02-CR-17-002275 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 3280 September Term, 2018 ______________________________________ KIRK MATTHEWS v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Graeff, Nazarian, Alpert, Paul E.

(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Nazarian, J. ______________________________________ Filed: February 25, 2021 * Ripken, J., did not participate in the Court’s Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal decision to designate this opinion for publication Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-605.1. 2021-02-25 14:14-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Kirk Matthews was convicted of two counts each of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence and one count each of possession of a shotgun after a disqualifying conviction and illegal possession of ammunition. On appeal, he argues that the court erred by permitting one of the State’s witnesses to testify about an allegedly inconsistent prior statement made by another witness, by precluding him from questioning another State witness about the witness’s criminal charges, and in denying his motion to preclude an expert report and testimony using photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection. We agree the court erred in denying Mr. Matthews’s motion to preclude the expert testimony and report, reverse on that ground, disagree with Mr. Matthews’s other contentions, and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND The story of this case is complicated and hard to follow.

A great many people were involved; many of them are related, others have lived in the affected neighborhood for years. Everything happened late at night, and the participants’ vision and memories were incomplete and frequently clouded by substances. There was some video footage, but it too was incomplete. The challenge for everyone lay in piecing together fragments of evidence that took many different forms.

On June 1, 2017, at approximately 12:30 a.m., the bodies of Linda McKenzie and Leslie Smith, her boyfriend, were found by the side of Scott Town Road, a dead-end street in Shady Side. The cause of death for both was multiple shotgun wounds to the upper extremities at close range. After a lengthy trial at which the only disputed issue was the identity of the shooter, Mr. Matthews was convicted of both murders and related charges. In the hours before the victims’ deaths, each had traveled separately to Scott Town Road.

They eventually got into a noisy fight that culminated in them chasing one another down the road in cars, one car driving forward and the other in reverse. The car driving in reverse backed into a ditch near the entrance of Scott Town Road. The police were called, and the car was removed from the ditch with the help of a neighbor, Joseph Tongue. After the car was removed, the victims remained in the vicinity, and the shooting occurred a short time later.

According to the prosecutor’s opening statement, Scott Town Road is populated primarily by families who have lived in the area for generations. The prosecutor noted that many of the residents have developed family-like relationships and generally consider each other cousins, whether or not they’re actually related by blood or marriage. Scott Town Road is also known to the police department as an open-air drug market, according to the prosecutor’s opening statement: So this area of Shadyside, this is Scotts Town Road. This is Shadyside Road, and this is the road that cuts through called Nick Road, so there’s an intersection at the top of Scotts Town Road and Nick Road.

This area is commonly known to the police department as what’s called an open-air drug market. Particularly, the Scotts Town Road and the intersection of Nick and Scotts Town Road. Now . . . the locals call this dead-end part of Scotts Town “Down Bottom.” They call that entire road “Lane,” and this section up here at the intersection of Nick Road and Scotts Town Road is called “Up Top”. . . . What you’re going to hear is that on any given day, if you drove Down Bottom, to the end of Scotts Town Road, you could go and buy drugs of any sort, illegal drugs, from somebody down in that area.

Or . . . you can 2 return Up Top to the intersection of Nick Road and Scotts Town Road and there’s a drug house on the corner. The day before the murders, the police had set up a surveillance pole camera at the top intersection of Nick Road and Scott Town Road. Another house, the Blunts’, has two security cameras. One of the Blunts’ cameras is mounted on the garage and aims down the driveway, and the other is set on the left-hand corner of the house aimed out to the street; both point directly at Scott Town Road.

The cameras didn’t capture the shootings on video, but they did provide evidence and helped paint the picture of events on the night of the murders. Among the events captured on video was the car chase, which ultimately ended with one of the cars driving in reverse backing into the ditch. From there, the video showed Ms. McKenzie, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Tongue walking up and down the road trying to figure out how to get the car out of the ditch. Then the police arrived, and Mr. Tongue and Mr. Smith are seen pushing the car underneath the pole cam and out of view, then into Mr. Tongue’s grandmother’s driveway.

Roughly twenty minutes after the police left Scott Town Road, the Blunts’ cameras captured people running away from the scene of the shooting and a car backing away from the scene. The video then shows an individual walking on the street, carrying what appears to be a shotgun, cutting past the Blunt house and into the woods. Both the events following the car’s removal from the ditch and the identities of the individuals involved were hotly contested. Many of the witnesses were inebriated and struggled to remember the details of the evening. 3 Mr. Tongue testified that he was raised by his grandmother on the Lane, was friends with Ms. McKenzie, and is Mr. Matthews’s cousin.

He said that in the hours leading up the shootings he consumed about one pint of vodka, four PCP “dippers,” and four Xanax bars. He maintained that he had difficulty remembering anything from the night of the murders after pushing Ms. McKenzie’s car into his grandmother’s driveway. Throughout Mr. Tongue’s testimony, he repeatedly reread his own grand jury testimony to refresh his memory. Before the grand jury, he stated that after pushing the vehicle into the driveway, he told the victims to leave because he saw Mr. Matthews coming from Nick Road holding what appeared to be a long gun.

Mr. Tongue repeated this statement to the trial jury, but said he could not identify Mr. Matthews by his face or clothing and had presumed the individual was Mr. Matthews based on his walk. Mr. Tongue then walked away and heard Mr. Matthews arguing with the victims. After Mr. Tongue was some distance away, he heard gunshots and ran. He looked back after the second gunshot and saw Mr. Matthews standing next to Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Smith lying on the ground.

The video also showed Mr. Tongue continuing to run and jumping into the car of his cousin, Kevin Matthews, along with a friend, Rico Hicks, who also was also fleeing the scene. Kevin1 dropped off Mr. Tongue and Rico at a neighbor’s house, where they slept for an hour or more because, Mr. Tongue testified, they were “drunk” and “high.” Mr. Tongue testified that at roughly 4:30 a.m. on June 1st, the two encountered the police 1 We will on occasion refer to Kevin Matthews, Rico and Edward Hicks, and Richard and Charles Jackson by their first names, purely for clarity and meaning no disrespect. 4 when they tried to leave the neighbor’s house and the police escorted them to the police station. The police questioned Mr. Tongue at that time, but he did not mention Mr. Matthews. Later that same day, around 6:30 p.m., the police again questioned Mr. Tongue when they stopped a car in which he and Rico were riding.

Mr. Tongue did not mention Mr. Matthews in response to those questions either. About a week later on June 7th, the police took Mr. Tongue to the police station for an unrelated arrest warrant and they again questioned him about the murders. Mr. Tongue testified that the police insinuated to him that they could help him out with his warrant, and they remarked that “inconveniences like this are going to keep happening,” and that “things in the area were not going to go back to normal.” Finally, Mr. Tongue testified that on August 17th, the Fugitive Apprehension Squad picked up him and Rico pursuant to a warrant to obtain their DNA. He testified that the police questioned him a fourth time about the murders, and accused him of “not being honest,” and said he was “going to be in this” whether he liked it or not.

The detectives then showed Mr. Tongue the Blunt house camera footage, and they warned him that he would see Mr. Matthews in it. Mr. Tongue later identified Mr. Matthews as the individual holding the gun, but maintained that he did not see the murders. On September 22nd, Mr. Tongue testified before a grand jury after meeting with the prosecutor. At that time, he provided his first account of seeing Mr. Matthews with a shotgun standing within five feet of the victims.

Kevin is Mr. Matthews’s and Mr. Tongue’s first cousin. At trial, he testified that he 5 drove the car into which Mr. Tongue and Rico jumped when fleeing Scott Town Road on the night of the murders. Kevin told detectives that he saw Mr. Matthews Up Top at about 10:30 p.m. on May 31st but didn’t see him again the rest of the night. He testified that there was a large amount of drug traffic that night, and that loud, rambunctious activity “does not belong” on the Lane.

Kevin could not remember what caused him to drive his car in reverse with Mr. Tongue and Rico inside. Richard Jackson grew up in the area and traveled to the Lane to do drugs the night of May 31st He testified that he arrived in the evening and was Down Bottom with Mr. Matthews and Rico. He saw the victims arguing with each other as they got into their cars and as Ms. McKenzie chased Mr. Smith into the ditch. Richard followed the chase in his own car, with Rico, then parked on the side of Scott Town Road.

He testified that Mr. Matthews walked up to the victims and said something like, “come on, y’all. Can you please keep it down?” He explained that Mr. Matthews “was trying to have them, you know, quiet down because they were being super loud.” But Mr. Smith was “running his mouth,” and that’s when Mr. Matthews “just said, that’s all right, I got something for your ass or something along those lines” and walked away from the victims. Richard testified that this encounter occurred right before the police came to assist with the car in the ditch, but that he left the scene “pretty much right after” the police left, explaining, “I was waiting for them to leave so I could leave.” Richard also testified that right before he left, he saw Mr. Matthews walking down Nick Road towards Scott Town Road carrying a shotgun. Because of where his car was parked, he could see Mr. Matthews from a distance, walking down the road.

He decided to 6 leave, and he passed Mr. Matthews (and saw him with the shotgun) on the way out. On June 19, 2017, Richard was questioned by the detectives and didn’t mention that he had seen Mr. Matthews walking down Nick Road with a shotgun after the ditch incident. When asked why he did not tell the police, Richard responded that “[i]t must have slipped [his] mind.” Instead, Richard had told police that he saw Mr. Matthews walking up and down the road with a shotgun forty minutes before the victims’ car went into a ditch, and he went on to describe the shotgun in detail. Finally, Richard testified that he had been informed during that June 19th questioning about a reward for information leading to the murder weapon.

Charles Jackson also was on the Lane the night of May 31st, in his case to pick up a friend. He heard Mr. Matthews say that Ms. McKenzie was “making the Lane hot, and to get the shit out of there.” Charles drove home while the victim’s car was still in the ditch, and he testified that he did not pass any cars parked along the side of Scott Town Road on his way. He explained that it is not a wide road, and there is nowhere to pull over, so he would have noticed another parked car. Rico grew up in the Shady Side area, roughly two minutes from Scott Town Road, and is Mr. Matthews’s and Kevin’s first cousin.

He testified that on May 31, 2017, he arrived at the Lane in the evening with Kevin and another individual, Peter Brown. Rico bought drugs and, about a half-hour later, walked towards the Bottom alone. On his way, he ran into Mr. Tongue, who followed him, and they passed Ms. McKenzie, who also walked alone on Scott Town Road towards the Top. When Rico arrived Down Bottom, he got high on PCP and crack.

Sometime later, while standing in front of the Blunt house, 7 Rico heard the gunshots and took off running, and testified that Kevin and Mr. Brown picked him and Mr. Tongue up. Rico told the prosecutor that he never looked back and never saw Mr. Matthews the night of the murders, and he repeated the same statements to the police and the grand jury. Moreover, he was unable to recognize the individual with the long gun in the surveillance video. Rico’s uncle, Edward Hicks, testified over the objection of defense counsel.

Edward testified that he heard gunshots the morning of June 1, 2017, and later asked Rico what happened. He testified that Rico told him he had seen Mr. Matthews shoot two people and drag them off the road, and that it was the worst thing he had ever seen. Edward admitted that he did not contact the police until five weeks later, and he asked about a reward for providing information that would lead to an arrest. When he later spoke with the prosecutor, he asked again about reward money.

Finally, Kathrine Bragg testified on behalf of the defense. In May 2017, Ms. Bragg was living on Nick Road, where she had moved only six months earlier, with her husband and three children. Ms. Bragg was unfamiliar with the neighborhood before moving there. The night of May 31st, around 10:30, she sat in the driveway of her home with her teenage daughter waiting for her husband to return from work.

Ms. Bragg drank four or five White Russian cocktails that night, a regular occurrence for her. While sitting in the driveway, Ms. Bragg saw a barefoot white woman walk past her house in the direction of Scott Town Road. She described the woman as angry, talking on her cell phone, and wearing short-shorts and a short sleeve top—the same clothing Ms. McKenzie was wearing in crime scene photos. Next, a white, heavier-set man walked 8 past the Bragg residence in the same direction as the woman.

Ms. Bragg heard arguing between the man and woman, and the man stated that “he knew he should have left her.” Then the man reappeared as he walked away from the woman, but promptly turned around and walked back towards the woman, trying to get her to leave. Approximately ten minutes later, Ms. Bragg and her family saw another white male holding a shotgun and walking down Nick Road in the same direction the other male and female had walked. She testified that the armed man was roughly 5′11″ or taller, blondish hair, thin, and twenty-five or younger. The armed individual cocked the shotgun right in front of the Braggs’ house.

She explained that the streetlights in front of her house were “really bright” and that she could even see the silver metal and wood on the shotgun. Ms. Bragg’s husband proceeded to call 911 to report the armed man, but while he was still on the phone, they heard the gunshots. The shots were fired roughly two minutes after the armed individual walked past Ms. Bragg’s house. On June 3, 2017, at 5:30 a.m., the police executed a no-knock search warrant at Mr. Matthews’s home on Shady Side Road, where he lived with his elderly parents.

The police recovered various items of clothing from throughout the house, a .410 caliber shotgun from Mr. Matthews’s father’s room, and three items—a twelve-gauge double barrel shotgun, twelve-gauge shotgun barrel, and twelve-gauge ammunition—from Mr. Matthews’s room. The shells found at the murder scene indicated that all were fired from the same weapon, a twelve-gauge shotgun. Forensic analysis revealed, however, that those shells had not been fired from the shotgun found in Mr. Matthews’s room, which fired only from one barrel. 9 In the wake of the search, Mr. Matthews was arrested for weapon offenses, but he was not charged with the murders of Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Smith until much later. After trial, a jury found Mr. Matthews guilty of two counts each of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and one count each of possession of a shotgun after a disqualifying conviction and illegal possession of ammunition.

He noted a timely appeal. We supply additional facts as necessary below.

II

DISCUSSION Mr. Matthews raises three issues on appeal that we rephrase.2 First, did the court err in permitting Edward Hicks to testify about an allegedly inconsistent prior statement by 2 Mr. Matthews raised three Questions Presented: 1. Did the circuit court err in permitting Edward Hicks to testify about an allegedly inconsistent prior statement made by Rico Hicks? 2. Did the circuit court err in precluding Appellant from questioning a crucial State witness about his charges that were resolved pursuant to a plea agreement before Appellant’s trial, with sentencing postponed until after trial? 3. Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant’s motion to preclude testimony and a report pertaining to the use of photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection?

The State rephrased those Questions Presented as: 1. To the extent preserved, did the trial court correctly overrule the defense objection to impeaching Rico Hicks with a prior inconsistent statement? 2. Did the trial court soundly exercise its discretion in controlling the scope of Joseph Tongue’s cross-examination? 3. To the extent preserved, did the trial court correctly deny the motion to preclude expert testimony concerning the height of the individual depicted in surveillance footage? 10 Rico Hicks?

Second, did the court err in precluding Mr. Matthews from questioning Mr. Tongue about criminal charges that had been resolved via plea agreement before Mr. Matthews’s trial? Third, did the court err in denying Mr. Matthews’s motion to preclude the State’s expert testimony and report using photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection to identify him? A. The Trial Court Did Not Err In Overruling The Defense’s Objection To Impeach A Witness With A Prior Inconsistent Statement. Mr. Matthews contends that the trial court violated Maryland Rules 5-6163 and 5- 613 when it admitted extrinsic evidence about an allegedly inconsistent prior oral statement by Rico Hicks.

He argues first that the State did not disclose the contents or circumstances of the statement adequately; second, that Rico was not given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement; and, third, that Rico did not deny making the statement, but simply did not remember. Additionally, Mr. Matthews argues that the State only called Rico as a 3 Md. Rule 5-616 allows prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence of those statements to come in for impeachment: (a) Impeachment by Inquiry of the Witness. The credibility of a witness may be attacked through questions asked of the witness, including questions that are directed at: (1) Proving under Rule 5-613 that the witness has made statements that are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony; *** (b) Extrinsic Impeaching Evidence. (1) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements may be admitted as provided in Rule 5-613(b). 11 “subterfuge” to admit otherwise inadmissible hearsay as “impeaching” evidence, and thus ran afoul of Rule 5-613.

In response, the State advances several arguments. First, the State argues that Mr. Matthews failed to preserve his objection for appellate review because defense counsel gave specific grounds for objection that do not encompass the broader objections on appeal. And even if the objection was preserved, the State says, Mr. Matthews abandoned his objection when his defense counsel came to a “shared understanding” with the court. Second, the plain language of Rule 5-613(b) does not require the witness to deny affirmatively making the statement, only that “the witness failed to admit having made the statement.” Third, the State argues that Mr. Matthews did not preserve his argument that Mr. Hicks was called as a “subterfuge” to admit inadmissible hearsay.

We agree with most of the State’s arguments. On October 19, 2019, the fourth day of trial, the State called Rico as its twelfth witness. Throughout the investigation and grand jury testimony, Rico maintained that he had not seen the shooting or any individual with a gun the night of the murders. At trial, Rico testified that he did not see Mr. Matthews the night of May 31st and into the morning hours of June 1st.

On cross-examination the prosecutor asked Rico if he had remembered telling his uncle Edward a different version of events: [THE STATE]: Sir, do you remember telling any—telling other people that you did see more than what you’ve told the jury here today? [MR. HICKS]: No, ma’am. [THE STATE]: Do you know who Edward Hicks is? [MR. HICKS]: Yeah, m. 12 *** [THE STATE]: Okay. Do you remember telling him anything about what happened that night? [MR.

HICKS]: No, ma’am. [THE STATE]: Okay. That’s all I have for him. Thank you. After Rico stood down, the State pronounced its intention to impeach him by having Edward testify about a prior, and allegedly inconsistent, oral statement.

The defense moved to preclude the State from impeaching Rico, arguing that he could not be impeached with an inconsistent prior statement because he had not denied making any particular statement, but had testified only that he did not remember telling his uncle anything about what happened. The court, prosecutor, and defense counsel then debated what had been asked during the testimony: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, [Edward] is going to be my witness and given Rico Hicks’ testimony and the State indicating that they plan to impeach Mr. Hicks’ testimony, Rico Hicks that is, with statements previously made to Edward Hicks, I would make a motion to preclude that. As we have heard Rico Hicks testify here today that he, in his words, does not remember speaking to Edward Hicks at all about the night incident, which I think does not open for the State to impeach with a prior statement concerning that night. He denied making statements.

He didn’t state that something different than his testimony here today, which is generally consistent with the testimony he gave before the grand jury, and consistent with statements made previously to Ms. Poma as well as to Detective Carbonaro. So I think given his testimony that he does not remember, that impeachment with that prior statement is not proper. [THE STATE]: Your Honor, the question before I asked, do you remember telling Edward Hicks, was, did you ever tell anyone that you saw what happened that night, and he said no. THE COURT: He did – he did say he didn’t. I wrote down that he said he didn’t. 13 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Right, but when specifically asked about Mr. Hicks, did not say no, I didn’t speak to him.

He said, I don’t remember telling him anything about that night. THE COURT: I think, at some point, I remember that he said he didn’t tell him. [THE STATE]: I think he did too. But either way, if he said he never told anyone, I was only trying to give him an opportunity so that we did not feel that he has an opportunity to handle it himself. But I agree with Your Honor that I think he laughed and said, no, I didn’t tell anyone that or I didn’t tell him that.

THE COURT: Do we all agree that he said he didn’t tell anyone that? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, my notes indicate he was asked, did you tell anyone that you saw more and his response was no. THE COURT: Right. So I think that sufficiently – anyone, certainly, would – I wrote down – and granted, I don’t say write down word for word that he didn’t say anything to his uncle. I recall him saying he didn’t tell anyone.

It is possible that my notes aren’t word for word, so I don’t want to suggest that they are, but I think not telling anyone includes not telling his uncle. So I think there’s sufficient basis to allow the State to ask, inquire. So I am going to allow it. Under Maryland Rule 8-131(a)4, we ordinarily will not decide any issue unless it appears plainly to be preserved in the record at the trial court.

To preserve an argument for 4 Maryland Rule 8-131(a) defines the scope of review as: (a) Generally. The issues of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter and, unless waived under Rule 2-322, over a person may be raised in and decided by the appellate court whether or not raised in and decided by the trial court. Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal. 14 appeal, a party shall object to the admission of evidence at the time the “evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the grounds for objection become apparent. Otherwise, the objection is waived.” Md. Rule 4-323(a).

Similarly, “[a] party must bring his argument to the attention of the trial court with enough particularity that the court is aware . . . what the parameters of the issue are.” Harmony v. State, 88 Md. App. 306, 317 (1991). If counsel provides specific grounds for objection, “the litigant may raise on appeal only those grounds actually presented to the trial judge.” Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549, 569 (1997). At trial, Mr. Matthews objected to the State impeaching Mr. Hicks with a prior inconsistent statement based specifically on the argument that Rico did not deny making the statement, but didn’t remember making one. The State is right, then, that Mr. Matthews did not preserve the entire argument he seeks to raise here.

See Brecker v. State, 304 Md. 36 , 39–40 (1985) (“[W]hen an objector sets forth the specific grounds for his objection, although not requested by the court to do so, the objector will be bound by those grounds and will ordinarily be deemed to have waived other grounds not specified.”). That said, we don’t agree that Mr. Matthews abandoned the objection he did make when the defense came to a “shared understanding” with the court. When objecting to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling, “it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order is made or sought, makes known to the court the action that the party desires the court to take or the objection to the action of the court.” Md. Rule 4-323(c); see also Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 143 (2005). In this case, the record reveals a clear intention by Mr. Matthews’s counsel to object to the admissibility of impeachment evidence against 15 Mr. Hicks.

See Smith v. State, 218 Md. App. 689, 702 (2014) (“The broader principle underlying our preservation decisions focuses on whether the party objecting on appeal gave the circuit court a proper opportunity to avoid or resolve errors during the trial, not on hyper-technicalities.”). We don’t read defense counsel’s agreement with the court and the State about the contents of the colloquy to waive arguments flowing from counsel’s ultimately correct recollection of Rico’s testimony. Everyone was trying to remember what happened, the court ruled, and nothing in the colloquy suggests that counsel intended to waive or abandon the argument they in fact made. That leaves the question that was raised, i.e., whether Edward’s testimony about Rico’s prior oral statement—that he allegedly witnessed Mr. Matthews committing the murders—was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach Rico when he testified that he didn’t remember making any statement.

Decisions to admit prior inconsistent statements are legal decisions we review de novo. Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698 , 708–09 (2014). A witness’s prior inconsistent statement is “‘[a] witness’s earlier statement that conflicts with the witness’s testimony at trial.’” Belton v. State, 152 Md. App. 623, 632 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1212 (7th ed. 1999)). Generally, “prior statements by a witness that are inconsistent with the witness’s in-court testimony are admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness.” Stewart v. State, 342 Md. 230, 236 (1996). “Evidence is ‘extrinsic’ when it is ‘proved through another witness, or by an exhibit not acknowledged or authenticated by the witness sought to be contradicted.’” Anderson v. State, 220 Md. App. 509, 519 (2014) (quoting 6 Lynn McLain, Maryland Evidence State and Federal § 607:3, at 553 (3d ed. 2013)). 16 Maryland Rule 5-616 permits extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement for the purpose of impeachment if Rule 5-613(b) is satisfied.

Rule 5-613 looks, among other things, at whether the witness admits making it: (a) Examining witness concerning prior statement. A party examining a witness about a prior written or oral statement made by the witness need not show it to the witness or disclose its contents at that time, provided that before