Peoples v. State

BELL, Judge. Don J. Peoples, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of first degree murder and using a handgun in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder. He was sentenced to five years for the use of the handgun to be served concurrently.

In this appeal he poses the following question: “Did the State’s suppression of exculpatory evidence deny Peoples due process of law?” Since we find the State did not suppress exculpatory evidence, our answer is in the negative. THE FACTS On October 16,1982, at about 10:00 p.m. in the 2300 block of Nevada Street in Baltimore City, Elwood Blackstone was shot and killed. He died of three gunshot wounds in the head. India Noakes, the victim’s fifteen year old girl friend, was on her porch at 2342 Nevada Street when she saw a man whom she identified as Peoples “peeping around the corner” while the victim was talking to someone in a Volkswagen.

She saw no one with Peoples. A few seconds later, she heard three shots. Noakes did not see who shot the victim. Bronte Bailey, age twenty, was sitting in a Volkswagen waiting for her cousin.

Bailey testified that she and the victim sat in the car and talked for about five minutes. When her cousin came out of the house and got in the car, the victim got out of the car and stood next to it. Bailey heard a “pop sound” and saw a man, whom she identified as Peoples, standing alone with a gun in his hand. Her cousin ⁵⁸¹ immediately drove away.

Bailey testified she heard only two shots and that the second shot was not fired until one or two minutes after the first shot. Linwood Walker recounted that he was in a car with Anthony Blackstone, who was the victim’s brother, and Albert Fields. Walker, Blackstone, and Fields related to the jury that while they were riding in Blackstone’s car, they saw someone lying in the street. When they drove around the block, they saw Peoples walking “rather fast” with two other men.

On cross-examination, Blackstone identified the two men as “Nate” and “Squirrel”, and stated that on the night of the shooting, he told a police officer about them. Several days earlier, the victim had defeated Peoples in a fist fight. Blackstone informed the jury that after the fight, Peoples told the victim that “he was going to get him some way or another.” Peoples denied any involvement in the shooting and stated that on the night in question he was at home with his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law. His testimony was corroborated by each of them.

In rebuttal, the State called Yvonne Willis. From her house at 2338 Nevada Street, Willis heard a shot and saw a man, whom she had never seen before, standing alone in front of a tree looking down at a body. After hearing two more shots, Willis fled. When asked if she saw that man in the courtroom, Willis stated that Peoples “favors” him.

The jury convicted Peoples of first degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. After the trial was completed, Peoples filed a Motion for a New Trial contending that the State had suppressed material and exculpatory evidence and thus denied him due process of law. At the hearing, certain uncontradicted facts were adduced. It was admitted that upon securing a warrant, Detective Terrence McLarney went to Peoples’ residence but did not locate him.

He next went to the home of Nathaniel Collins to look for Peoples. He was directed there by the ⁵⁸² brother of the victim, who told him “that’s one of the guys who’s good buddies with the man that killed my brother.” McLarney did not know whether Collins was “Nate” nor did he inquire. McLarney did agree that “Squirrel” and “Nate” were mentioned to him by Anthony Blackstone. McLarney said he never pursued the matter because the witnesses told him that one man, Peoples, did the shooting.

McLarney did ask Collins where he had been the night of the murder. He said Collins told him he had been to “several locations”. Collins testified he had been to “Gentlemen’s 10”. Collins denied seeing Peoples that night.

No written statement was taken from Collins. Nathaniel Collins is known as “Nate” and one Bruce Whittington is known as “Squirrel”. These men worked with Peoples. There is no evidence whether the police checked Collins’ alibi.

There is no evidence they even attempted to locate Whittington. The prosecutor admitted that on the day of trial it did occur to her that Nathaniel Collins might be the “Nate”; therefore, she wrote in the name and address of Collins for voir dire purposes. During the trial, defense counsel did learn that Nate and Squirrel worked with Peoples. He made no further inquiry.

The motion for a new trial was denied. THE LAW Peoples relies on the following reasoning: the State knew the whereabouts of a witness helpful to him and failed to disclose it, Regle v. State, 9 Md.App. 346 , 264 A.2d 119 (1970), that the suppression of material evidence exculpatory to him is a denial of due process, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and that when a specific request is made for the specific evidence which is withheld the conviction must be set aside if the evidence “might have affected the outcome of the trial”. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Peoples goes on to say that in this case there was ⁵⁸³ more than passive non-disclosure and cites the closing argument of counsel.

The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at page 87, 83 S.Ct. at page 1196 that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor.” The Supreme Court in Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794 , 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2567 , 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972), refined the Brady holding, stating: The heart of the holding in Brady is the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Important, then, are (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and (c) the materiality of the evidence. The Supreme Court dealt with this issue again in United States v. Agurs, supra, and set forth the three situations in which the Brady rule usually arises: (1) when the State’s case includes perjured testimony and the State knew or should have known of the perjury, (2) where there is a request for specific evidence which is withheld or suppressed, and (3) where there is a general request or no request for exculpatory material. In the first two situations the conviction must be set aside if the perjury or omitted evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.

In the third situation the conviction must be set aside “if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.” 427 U.S. at 112 , 96 S.Ct. at 2401 . At the trial Peoples’ position was that the State was required to give him the information about Nate because Rule 741 requires that the information be furnished. Peoples now claims he made a specific request for that information. He states that request was made to the prosecutor at ⁵⁸⁴ the beginning of voir dire.

Unfortunately, we are not provided with a transcript of that conversation, but we do have the following colloquy between Quisgard, counsel for Peoples, and the Court at the hearings subsequent to the trial. MR. QUISGARD: ... [Reading from Blackstone’s testimony]. ‘When did you tell these two police officers about Nate and Squirrel? The same night the incident occurred.

Was it on the street or in the police station? In the police car. You told them about those two names? Yes.

Did you also tell them about Jerome? I sure did.’ Now, Your Honor, Rule 741 requires that any information, even without a request for discovery, known to the State which would tend to exculpate a defendant is required to be given to me. Certainly where three people are identified as leaving the scene of a first degree murder and their names are given to the police and the police investigate Nathaniel Collins who turns out to be Nate which we didn’t learn until two weeks after the trial, then the State was duty-bound to give us the information. Had I before the jury had not only my client and his family and his relatives but also Nathaniel Collins and Bruce Whittington who is Squirrel, who is outside too, who was never even interviewed by the police — had I been able to put them on