Payton v. State

Beachley, J. After a four-day jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant Brandon Payton was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Appellant timely appealed and presents three questions for our review, which we have reordered: 1. Was [a]ppellant deprived of a fair trial when the trial judge departed from a position of neutrality, directing the prosecutor to reopen the case after the State had rested to introduce critical evidence? 2. Is the evidence legally insufficient to sustain [a]ppellant's convictions? 3.

Did the trial judge err by permitting Detective Riker to narrate a video recording while it was being played for the jury? While the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's convictions, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it departed from a position of neutrality and sua sponte reopened the State's case, and remand for a new trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At approximately 6:00 p.m. on June 12, 2015, in West Baltimore, several eyewitnesses watched a man dressed in brightly-colored women's clothing and a floppy hat chase down and shoot another man. The victim, identified as Steven Bass, died from multiple gunshot wounds.

The shooter fled into an alley by a nearby liquor store, whose security footage corroborated testimony about an individual wearing a floppy hat and floral blouse in the vicinity of the shooting. Police officers searched the scene and alley, but were unable to recover any bullets, shell casings, or articles of clothing belonging to the shooter. However, they were later able to lift a palm print from the car of a witness who believed the shooter may have touched the hood of his vehicle while passing by. A search for the print on an automated database returned a "hit," and an arrest warrant for appellant was eventually issued on July 15, 2015.

Appellant was tried in September 2016 before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. During the trial, the State introduced testimony from two expert witnesses from the Latent Fingerprint Unit at the Baltimore City Police Department: Sean Dorr and Elizabeth Patti. Mr. Dorr testified that he examined three fingerprint lift cards taken from the witness's vehicle, and found one-a partial latent print-suitable for comparison. That lift card was uploaded to an automated system that compares unknown prints against Maryland's state database of known prints.

After examining the results, Mr. Dorr testified from his report that "the partial latent print ... has been identified as an impression of the left palm of Brandon Payton, SID number 2476078." 1 Mr. Dorr further testified that he personally fingerprinted appellant on August 9, 2016, and that he was able to verify that the prints he took were also linked to SID number 2476078. Mr. Dorr, however, did not compare those August 2016 prints directly to the lift card taken from the witness's vehicle. Ms. Patti testified that she used magnifiers to physically compare the lift card to known prints in the system belonging to appellant. She also verified that the prints Mr. Dorr took from appellant in August 2016 were linked to SID number 2476078.

When the State rested, appellant made a motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting simply that "the State has not proven its case at this point." Perhaps due to the State's confusing explanation regarding SID numbers, 2 the trial court immediately began to question the State about whether its experts had testified that the unknown print (on the lift card) had ever actually been compared to known prints of appellant. Despite replaying portions of Mr. Dorr's testimony, the State was unable to provide the trial court with a satisfactory explanation. During the following colloquy, the trial court sua sponte reopened the State's case and offered the State the opportunity to put on further evidence: THE COURT: I am more than frustrated. Right this minute I don't think you've made your case.

So my question is, do I simply grant the motion to dismiss which I could easily do based on what I have heard of this testimony, because you have not convinced me that your client, that you have put this man at the scene of this crime. Now, if you want me to allow you to reopen your case to call your expert back in-and Ms. Zeit [defense counsel] I'm sure is going to object to that-and ask that question, in your judgment, to a reasonable degree of certainty, is the print that was taken off of that car Mr. Brandon Payton's print, if you want to call your witness back for five minutes of testimony with whatever cross-examination, I am going to permit that, because I think justice needs to be done and I-generally speaking, I am generally speaking, not inclined to punish clients-in your case, the public is your client-for something that a lawyer may or may not have done. But I don't think you've made your case at this moment. I'm going to permit you to do that.

And Ms. Zeit, you're going to object, I'm assuming? [DEFENSE]: Absolutely, yes. THE COURT: Yeah, I thought so, and I don't blame you. But right this minute, I'm going to let you reopen your case Friday morning for brief testimony to fill in the gap in your case- [THE STATE]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -because I think you intended to do it and I don't think you did it, and the fact that you can't point to me right now-I mean, I've listened to what you're talking about here and it is not convincing me at all.

I think you got lost in the weeds, quite frankly. And so, I'm going to let you do it, but you know, right this minute, I'm not seeing it. You're not convincing me that you've made your case because you haven't put this man on the scene of the crime. And- [THE STATE]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -again, if you can't do it on Friday, that's fine, then I will grant the motion. Two days later, Mr. Dorr was called back to the witness stand and testified that he had examined the palm print from the witness's car, prepared a report identifying the print as belonging to appellant, and that the associated SID number was 2476078. Mr. Dorr also testified that he personally took fingerprints from appellant on August 9, 2016, and that those prints were associated with SID number 2476078. Mr. Dorr explained that whenever a person is fingerprinted, those prints are tested against an automated database of known prints.

If the prints are found to have an existing match within the system, they will be associated with the same SID number. Mr. Dorr explained that an individual may have two SID numbers, one for prints taken as a juvenile and one for prints taken as adult, but that appellant was only associated with SID number 2476078. After the cross-examination of Mr. Dorr, the State rested. Appellant produced no evidence, and the case proceeded with jury instructions and closing arguments.

Later that afternoon, the jury found appellant guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. On December 5, 2016, appellant received a life sentence for first-degree murder and a consecutive twenty-year sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. 3 Appellant noted this timely appeal. DISCUSSION I. Trial Court's Reopening of the Case Appellant argues that the trial court abandoned its position of impartiality when it declined to rule on the motion for judgment of acquittal, sua sponte reopened the State's case-in-chief, and told the State exactly what it needed to do to survive the motion for acquittal. We agree, and hold that the trial court abused its discretion by abandoning its neutral role and sua sponte reopening the State's case for further testimony. 4 Generally, trial judges have broad discretion to reopen a case to receive additional evidence, and such decisions will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

Hunt v. State , 321 Md. 387 , 405, 583 A.2d 218 (1990). When the State moves to reopen its case-in-chief to introduce additional evidence, "the judge must consider whether the State deliberately withheld the evidence proffered in order to have it presented at such time as to obtain an unfair advantage by its impact on the trier of facts." State v. Hepple , 279 Md. 265 , 271, 368 A.2d 445 (1977). The instant case, however, does not involve a trial court granting the State's motion to reopen its case. Instead, the trial court here sua sponte reopened the State's case for additional evidence, in a jury trial, based on its belief that the State had not adequately proved its case.

While we are not aware of any Maryland case directly on point, we addressed this type of scenario through dicta in Cason v. State , 140 Md. App. 379 , 780 A.2d 466 (2001). In Cason , we held that a trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he sua sponte reopened the evidentiary portion of a suppression hearing to admit additional evidence that the prosecution had neglected to introduce during its case-in-chief. Id. at 393 , 780 A.2d 466 . In making this decision, we acknowledged that courts have identified some factors which may be considered when assessing a trial court's decision to vary the order of proof in a case, such as: Whether good cause is shown; whether the new evidence is significant; whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis, prejudicing the party against whom it is offered; whether the evidence is controversial in nature; and, whether the reopening is at the request of the jury or a party.

Id. at 391-92 , 780 A.2d 466 (quoting Dyson v. State , 328 Md. 490 , 502, 615 A.2d 1182 (1992) ). Applying some of these factors, we noted that the additional evidence was not new, but merely corroborated and clarified earlier testimony. Id. at 392, 780 A.2d 466 . We also observed that Cason was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine or present rebuttal evidence and further noted that, because the proceeding was before a judge, there was no danger of prejudicing a jury.

Id. at 392-93 , 780 A.2d 466 . Because Cason involved a suppression hearing with a judge, rather than a jury, acting as a finder of fact, it is distinguishable from the case at bar. Nevertheless, the Cason Court reviewed cases which Cason relied upon in arguing that the trial court had "assumed the role of the prosecutor." Id. at 393 , 780 A.2d 466 . In distinguishing Cason's case from those he cited, we opined that: All but one of the cases that [Cason] relies upon in support of his argument that the suppression hearing judge "assumed the role of prosecutor" in reopening the evidence involved situations in which, after the State failed to produce legally sufficient evidence, the judge reopened the State's case in order to allow the prosecution to cure this defect.

These cases are inapposite. The remaining case relied upon by [Cason] involved a trial judge's "suggesting that the prosecutor should impeach [the defendant's] testimony by proof of a prior conviction," and reopening cross examination for him to do so. In those circumstances, it was clear that the trial judge had abandoned his neutral role and had acted as an advocate by assisting the prosecution in the presentation of its case. Id. at 393 , 780 A.2d 466 (internal citations omitted).

In Wisneski v. State , we applied the factors enumerated in Cason and held that the trial court did not err in reopening a criminal jury trial for illegal possession of a handgun. 169 Md. App. 527 , 905 A.2d 385 (2006), aff'd on other grounds , 398 Md. 578 , 921 A.2d 273 (2007). There, the parties stipulated on the record but out of the presence of the jury that the defendant, Wisneski, had been convicted of a crime which made it illegal for him to possess a handgun. Id. at 531, 905 A.2d 385 . After presenting its case, the State rested under the mistaken belief that the stipulation had already been entered into evidence.

Id. at 532-33 , 905 A.2d 385 . Wisneski moved for acquittal on the basis that the stipulation had not been introduced into evidence. Id. at 533 , 905 A.2d 385 . The State responded that it thought the stipulation was already in evidence, and moved to reopen its case in order to place it on the record before the jury.

Id. The trial court granted the State's motion. Id. We affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that there was no evidence that the State withheld the stipulation for tactical advantage.

Id. at 555 , 905 A.2d 385 . Moreover, because Wisneski had agreed to the stipulation, the reopening did not impair Wisneski's ability to respond or impede his right to a fair trial. Id. We also observed that from the jury's perspective, the stipulation was not presented out of order or unduly highlighted, because the trial court read it to the jury at the close of the State's case.

Id. While Cason and Wisneski provide important guidance in resolving the case at bar, there does not appear to be any Maryland appellate decision addressing the propriety of a trial judge sua sponte reopening the State's case for additional evidence to cure a perceived flaw in the prosecution's case. Courts from other states, however, have addressed this issue. In J.F. v. State , 718 So.2d 251 (Fla.

Dist. Ct. App. 1998), the court held that the trial court erred when it sua sponte reopened the prosecution's case to obtain fingerprint evidence in a juvenile appellant's trial for theft of an automobile. There, the investigating officer testified that he had obtained fingerprints from the stolen automobile but that the test results were not available at the time of trial. Id. at 252 .

After the State and defense rested, the trial judge called the officer back into the courtroom. Id. The trial judge then asked the officer when the fingerprint analysis would be available and directed the officer to have the results available within a week. Id.

Though the prosecution never asked for a continuance nor indicated that it intended to submit fingerprint analysis, the trial judge sua sponte continued the case to obtain the fingerprint evidence. Id. Approximately one week later, the hearing resumed and, over J.F.'s objection, the trial court admitted incriminating fingerprint evidence against J.F. Id. The Florida intermediate appellate court reversed the conviction, noting that "[a] trial judge 'should never assume the role of prosecuting attorney and lend the weight of his great influence to the side of the