Snyder v. State

BISHOP, Judge. Appellant, William L. Snyder, was charged with first and second degree murder. A jury, sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, found appellant guilty of first degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues Appellant raises the following questions, which we rephrase: I. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction?

II

Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of police speculation?

III

Did the trial court err in allowing the State to question defense witnesses regarding prior bad acts of appellant?

IV

Did the trial court err in allowing the State to question defense witnesses regarding prior statements made by the witnesses? V. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow appellant to consult with his attorney?

VI

Did the trial court err in allowing State witnesses to testify that the victim had feared for her life?

VII

Did the trial court err when it permitted appellant to discharge his attorney at the close of all the evidence, but before jury instructions and closing argument?

VIII

Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial? We answer appellant’s second question in the affirmative and, thus, reverse and remand for a new trial. To the extent they have been preserved, we address several of the remaining questions for the guidance of the trial court. Rule 8-131(a); Bedford v. State, 317 Md. 659, 668 , 566 A.2d 111 (1989). ⁵³⁸ Facts On February 14, 1986, the victim, Frances Kay Snyder, left her house shortly after 6:00 a.m. to go to work; however, she never arrived at work that day.

At approximately 2:30 p.m., the victim’s husband, appellant, found his wife’s body at the edge of a wooded area across the street from their residence. The victim had been bludgeoned. In 1993, appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, although the State had no forensic evidence connecting appellant with the murder. The State, rather, presented detailed testimony regarding appellant’s actions on the day of the murder and subsequent to the murder.

Among the State’s -witnesses were Tanya, Valerie, and Bonnie Snyder, and Robin Hock, daughters of appellant and the victim, and William Snyder, Jr., son of appellant and the victim. Officer Robert Martin testified that, on the date of the murder, he went to appellant’s home in response to a call for a cardiac arrest. When he arrived at the scene, the fire department was already present. Officer Martin testified that, “[the victim] was lying down in about a 6 foot ravine off of Clark Boulevard, so you really couldn’t see the body until you were kind of on top of it.” The victim’s shattered eye glasses were found lying in the driveway of the Snyder residence.

Near the eye glasses, the police found a blood spot, measuring about seven inches in diameter, in which there were also strands of dark hair and gray matter. There were also more blood spots in the road toward the driveway and on the far side of Clark Boulevard. When Officer Martin arrived on the scene, the victim’s car was parked in her driveway. Appellant advised Officer Martin that he had seen the car parked at Village Auto Body Shop, a nearby garage, and that he had driven it from the garage to the driveway.

Appellant told Officer Martin that, after appellant parked the car in the driveway, he noticed something “that he thought was suspicious or something along in the woods.” According to Officer Martin, appellant’s comment was unusual because, standing in the driveway “and ⁵³⁹ looking into the woods toward where the body was lying[,] there was nothing that you could see.... There was nothing that would have le[ ]d me to believe that something out of the ordinary or the fact that there was a body back there. There was just nothing visible.” Officer Martin testified that appellant had first told him that he had seen something suspicious in the woods when he got out of his wife’s vehicle in the driveway, but then, appellant, while writing his statement, indicated that he “did not notice something suspicious in the woods until he was half way into Clark Boulevard.” Officer Martin did not include in his report, however, where appellant showed him he had first seen the body. On cross-examination, Officer Martin stated that he failed to note in his police report that nothing unusual could be seen from the vantage point of appellant’s driveway.

Officer Martin also acknowledged that nowhere in his police report did he include anything about a ravine or that the victim’s body was below the level parallel to the plane of Clark Boulevard. Detectives William Ramsey and Milton Duckworth, the investigating homicide detectives, confirmed Officer Martin’s observation that it was impossible to see the victim’s body from the driveway because of its position twelve to fifteen feet behind two cars parked on the side of the road. On the day of the murder, appellant made the following handwritten statement: I woke up about 5 o’clock. My wife said she was running late would I make her coffee while she took her shower.

I signed Valentine cards for the kids and hers and left them on the table. I started her car about 6 and came in the house. I put some clothes from washer into dryer jeans ... [—] laid down. I woke about 6:35 checked on Valerie and made her get up for work.

I made her lunch bag and breakfast. She left at about 7:40[.] I believe my daughter Tanya was up at this time[.] [A]t about 8 o’clock I called Frank Smallwood [a/k/a “Adolph”] and asked him to drop me off at Fox to buy a 1975 Torino. I then called Baltimore] Wash[.] Auction and got 3 numbers for cars for Tuesday’s sale. Frank came[.] I woke Bonnie before I left ⁵⁴⁰ for Fox.

I bought the Torino and came home. I woke Billy for work at about 9:20. I [went] outside to move a ’74 Mustang that was stuck[,] it wouldn’t start. Me and my son left for Fulton Auto Sales at about 10 o’clock.

(I took shower prior to leaving). I left Fulton about 10:20 with my son to take a car to Fox Chevrolet. We then left and went to Russell Toyota to buy a part for ’79 pick up truck, ordered part, waited until U[/]C manager was free. Me and my son bought a 1975 Ford wagon.

I came home, arrived about 11:45. My daughter Bonnie had left for work about 5 minutes previous. My daughter Tanya was still here getting ready to go to doctor’s. I waited for Tanya to get ready[,] folded some jeans and straightened up the house.

I called Kay’s work, spoke with someone named Bob. He said he hadn’t seen her but didn’t know if she was in or in that department today. About 12 [o’clock,] I became concerned. My daughter felt she went to the doctor[’]s.

After my daughter Tanya was ready we [rode] down Washington Boulevard to beltway and to BW Expressway out to Westinghouse looking for my wife’s car. We then stopped at a card shop on Camp Meade Road. Tanya and I bought some candy and a card for her mother. I then took her to her doctor for exam about 1:45.

We left the doctor’s at 2:15[,] I took Tanya to my mother’s[,] came towards house to look for doctor’s phone number to find out if Kay was there or had appointment coming up Clark. I thought I saw her car in Village Auto Service[.] I asked where my wife was or what was wrong with her car or why was it here. I was told it had been there since about 8. I looked at car[.] [I]t seemed like no mechanical problem.

I brought my ’78 Datsun home then walked down and drove Kay’s car up[.] I then noticed her purse and purse contents scattered about. Realizing something is wrong I started looking around. I noticed what I thought was red paint and then I noticed something not right across the street. I then crossed the street and saw it was Kay.

She was half naked and bloodied. I tried to talk to her[.] I tried to cover her but her clothes wouldn’t move. I ran to my house and called ⁵⁴¹ 911. The lady told me to hold on and go see if she was breathing and an ambulance was on the way.

I think I checked her and couldn’t tell first or second trip she told me to roll her over then the ambulance was there. After making this statement, appellant was asked what made him look across the street. Appellant responded: I don’t know, I just panicked and noticed what I thought was red paint by the driveway. I think I was half way in the street when I noticed something wrong in the woods.

I noticed what appeared to be, what looked like red paint and something else. I don’t know what else it was, just something. I was just looking everywhere. When I came to check out the area I saw my wife.

Appellant denied that he and the victim were having marital problems, but admitted that, in the course of their marriage, they had been separated three times. The most recent separation was during the summer of 1985; however, appellant told Officer Martin that, since that reconciliation, “it had been great and getting better all the time.” Detective George Thiess, a Crime Unit officer, testified that the victim’s body was found in a ravine, twelve to fifteen feet behind two vehicles parked on the far side of Clark Boulevard. Detective Thiess testified that the position of the victim’s clothing indicated that the victim had been dragged to that location. A search of the victim’s car at the Baltimore County Police Department Headquarters produced various personal items, including a twenty dollar bill and the victim’s purse, which contained more personal items and $59.55.

From the trunk of the victim’s car, the police recovered a “come-along,” which is an automobile device used to secure, pull, and lift items. The come-along had a bent handle. Tanya Snyder testified that, on February 14, 1986, at approximately 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., she phoned the victim at Westinghouse, where the victim was employed. The victim was not there.

Tanya also testified that, when she first saw appellant that morning at approximately 10:30 a.m., he was ⁵⁴² “slightly” concerned when he learned that the victim was not at work. Around 1:00 p.m., appellant and Tanya drove the route that the victim usually took to work, but they could not find the victim. Afterward, appellant and Tanya went to buy Valentine cards. Tanya'testified that, when she showed appellant the card that she had selected for the victim, appellant “read the card and paused for a moment then said that is nice and walked away.” Tanya described appellant’s reactions as “a little obscure” and stated that she was surprised by his reaction.

Tanya testified that appellant took her to her doctor’s appointment and then to her grandmother’s house, which was unusual because Tanya rarely went to her grandmother’s house because her mother and grandmother “were never on very good terms.” Tanya further testified that, when her parents fought, her mother would try to hit her father, but that her father would not hit her mother. According to Tanya, during the two weeks prior to her mother’s murder, she did not recall any domestic disputes between her parents, and that the day prior to the murder, she thought that her mother was in good spirits. Valerie Snyder testified that several unusual events occurred on the day of the murder. First, appellant, wearing only his underwear, awakened Valerie at approximately 6:45 a.m.

This was unusual because the victim “didn’t like [appellant] to come around us in his underwear.” Secondly, appellant told Valerie that he was going to the store to buy her food for her lunch; Valerie said that this was unusual for appellant to do. Then, after using Valerie’s car to drive to the grocery store, appellant, who always pulled into the driveway, backed the car into the driveway. Finally, appellant, rather than the victim, had purchased and signed their Valentine’s Day cards. Valerie also testified that her parents fought often, and, that at her mother’s funeral, appellant did not look “like he was sorry or that he was upset.” ⁵⁴³ Bonnie Snyder testified that, on the day of the victim’s murder, around noon, she noticed an indentation on her car door, “like someone had tried to pry open my door.” She also testified that, on the day of the murder, she received a Valentine’s Day card signed by appellant, although the victim normally signed the Valentine’s Day cards.

Bonnie contended that, when her parents fought, her mother was often the aggressor. Bonnie remembered a fight between her parents, before their separation in 1985, and testified that her mother threw pots and pans at appellant, and that appellant had held the victim by the throat “for a few seconds” until she calmed down. Bonnie also testified that the come-along that was found in the victim’s car was either her father’s or brother’s and that it was used to “tow cars out of the ditch [because a] lot of cars went over the hill when it was snowing.” Bonnie indicated that, on occasion, the come-along would be in her mother’s car “because they used my mom’s car to pull people out of the ditches because my mom had a big heavy car.” Robin Hock confirmed that it was unusual that appellant backed Valerie’s car into the driveway because “[n]o one ever backed a car into the driveway.” Robin further testified that her parents separated from July to November, 1985, after the victim was treated at North Arundel Hospital for a bruised throat and neck resulting from an altercation with appellant. According to Robin, during this separation, appellant, the named beneficiary on the victim’s life insurance policy, asked Robin if the victim intended to change the beneficiaries on her life insurance policy.

Robin stated that the victim did want to remove appellant as a beneficiary and that the victim was scared of appellant. Appellant received $170,250 in insurance proceeds as a result of his wife’s death. Robin testified, however, that her “father was told by the insurance company [that] he was a suspect in the murder [and] that he would not be able to receive the funds from them.... [T]he only way that they would be released was if all 5 children signed papers releasing ⁵⁴⁴ all rights to the money for the rest of our lives____ He then offered ten thousand dollars to each child.... ” Robin testified that, after appellant received the insurance money, he loaned her an additional $10,000, which she did not repay because the victim “did not want [appellant] to have any of the insurance money and that [the victim] feared for her life and that was why she wanted to change it to begin with.” Robin further testified that, approximately six months after the murder, appellant began seeing another woman and, shortly thereafter, she saw that woman dressed in the victim’s clothing. Vernon Frame, an attorney, testified that the victim had consulted him on July 30, 1985, about a divorce, at which time the victim had bruises on her face and a black eye.

Frame filed a divorce complaint on behalf of the victim, which was later dismissed when appellant and the victim reconciled. Albert Johnson, the victim’s brother, testified that, approximately three weeks prior to the victim’s death, appellant informed Johnson that he was “going to get rid of the victim----” Albert suggested that appellant move from the home and lease an apartment. Appellant, however, refused and stated that he had “to work something out here but I don’t think I am going to be leaving [the family residence].” Albert testified that, at the victim’s funeral, appellant “was acting funny, like a clown, ... he just didn’t act like the person that would—that someone’s wife is laying in there in a casket, he was enjoying himself.” At the funeral, appellant told Albert that, “if Tanya ... hadn’t ... changed her statement from telling [me] that [the victim] wasn’t at work at 7:30 in the morning, [I] would be in jail right now and ... I have got to watch what I say here because I don’t want to change my story around.” Tanya Snyder had originally told the police that, at 7:00 a.m., she informed her father that the victim was not at work.

She later told the police that she was incorrect and that she had not seen her father until 10:30 a.m. Notably, one week prior to the murder, the victim ran out of gas on her way to ⁵⁴⁵ work; when appellant learned that the victim was not at work, he began looking for her immediately. On the day of the murder, however, appellant waited until 1:00 p.m. to search for the victim. According to Albert, appellant objected to Albert’s offer to provide a $10,000 reward for information concerning the victim’s murder.

Albert stated that when Albert told appellant that he was offering a reward, because he wanted to find out who murdered his sister, appellant told him: “I don’t think they will ever solve the case.” Albert testified that the victim rented a safe deposit box under her name and Albert’s name. The victim kept both keys to the box and told Albert that under no circumstances was appellant to have access to the safety deposit box. Appellant called Albert the day after the victim’s funeral, requesting access to the safe deposit box, which he mistakenly believed contained $4,300. When Albert asked appellant how he had a key, appellant told Albert that “[the victim] left it here in the kitchen cabinet and told me if I ever needed it, it would be there for me.” Upon Albert’s urging, appellant gave the key to the detectives.

When the detectives opened the safe deposit box, they found two pieces of jewelry and $32.00. The second safe deposit key was found, in a red envelope, in the victim’s tool box at Westinghouse. Lois Johnson, the victim’s sister-in-law, testified that, a few days after the funeral, Tanya Snyder was staying at her house. Appellant had called Tanya on the phone.

After appellant and Tanya spoke, appellant had Tanya put Lois on the phone and said: “I want you to remember today because it may be the day that saves me.” Lois stated that appellant was referring to Tanya’s intention to tell the detectives that she was confused about what time it was that she had originally told appellant that the victim was not at work. Specifically, Tanya was going to tell the police that it was 10:30 a.m., and not 7:30 a.m., when she first saw appellant and told him that the victim was not at work. ⁵⁴⁶ Linda Johnson, the victim’s sister-in-law, recounted a conversation that she had with appellant during his 1985 separation from the victim: The phone rang this particular afternoon. I answered and [appellant] asked to speak to [the victim] and I said she is not here and I said furthermore I said I really don’t think she will speak to you anyway. He says I don’t know what her problem is and I said she thinks you are trying to kill her. * * * * * * He laughed and he said that is a joke, he said, because if I wanted to kill her all I would have to do is pay a couple hundred and I can have her knocked off like that.

Linda testified that, at the victim’s funeral, appellant “was very cold, no remorse, no sorrow____ He didn’t make eye contact, a very few times.” Linda stated that when appellant was relaying the story of what happened on the day of the victim’s murder, he was “[v]ery well rehearsed.” Willa Spreen, the victim’s cousin, testified that, during the 1985 separation, the victim nervously discussed divorcing appellant and told her about the safe deposit box that she had with Albert. Willa testified that she saw the safe deposit box key on the victim’s key ring. Willa further testified that, the night before the murder, the victim had called her and was very upset. “[The victim] said that—that [appellant] had. threatened her before and that she—well, she had told him previously that she wanted him out of the house ... that she was afraid that he was going to kill her. [The victim] said that [appellant] made the statement that she was a dead woman.” William Harp, the owner of the Village Auto Body Shop, where appellant found the victim’s car, testified that, when he opened the shop at 7:45 a.m. on the morning of the murder, the victim’s car was parked on his lot; however, he did not know why the car was there. According to Mr. Harp, appellant arrived at the body shop around 10:00 a.m., claiming that, from his house, he had seen the victim’s car parked there. ⁵⁴⁷ Mr. Harp testified that appellant left the body shop to try to locate his wife.

Appellant returned later that day, told Mr. Harp that his wife was not at work and drove the victim’s car back home. Mr. Harp also testified to several visits that appellant made to his shop after the murder. During these visits, appellant expressed concern over the police investigation and urged Mr. Harp not to cooperate with the police. Mr. Harp noted that each time appellant came to the body shop to discuss whether the police had come to ask questions, appellant would “say they’re never going to find out who did it.” Mr. Harp also stated that, each time he would speak with appellant, “he would never show any interest in finding out the person who killed his wife.” Mr. Adolph Smallwood (a/k/a Frank), a witness for the defense, stated that he called appellant during the evening of February 13,1986 about a car for sale at Fox Chevrolet.

The next morning, Mr. Smallwood arrived at the Snyder residence at approximately 8:20 a.m., pulled into the driveway, honked the horn, and appellant came out of the house. The men went to Fox Chevrolet where appellant purchased a car and drove it away. Mr. Smallwood testified that he never really talked to appellant about the victim’s death, but that appellant had told him that he wished they could find out who killed the victim “so they would leave [me] alone.” During cross-examination, Mr. Smallwood indicated that he had heard that appellant and one of his daughters had a “falling out” a couple of years after the victim had died because the daughter kept saying that appellant was involved with the death of his wife. William Snyder, Jr., appellant’s son, testified that he awoke a little after 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the murder and left the Snyder residence around 10:00 a.m. with his father.

The two went to Fulton Auto Sales, Fox Chevrolet, Russell Toyota, and then William returned alone to Fulton Auto Sales. Shortly after 3:00 p.m., William returned home. William met appellant in the front yard and appellant told him that his ⁵⁴⁸ mother was across the street. William testified that, from where he was standing in the front yard, he was able to see the victim’s feet.

William further testified that, when he walked to the far side of Clark Boulevard, he could see up to the victim’s knees. William testified that he and appellant owned the come-along that was found in his mother’s car, and that they had owned it for approximately six months prior to the victim’s death. William testified that it was used for “anything,” such as pulling vehicles out of ditches. When asked about the bend in the handle of the come-along, William explained that the come-along was cheap, and that any attempt to apply pressure when using it would cause the handle to bend.

William further testified that the victim would get a violent temper when she became very upset. Appellant presented several witnesses who testified to his good character for honesty, truthfulness, ‘and peacefulness. Appellant himself testified, inter alia, that he did not go to the Village Auto Body Shop until sometime after 2:00 p.m. on the day of his wife’s murder, that he did not kill his wife, that his wife told him about the safe deposit box, that she gave him a key so that he would have access to the safe deposit box, and that he never asked Albert Johnson to help him gain access to the box. Additional facts will be discussed infra, as necessary.

Discussion I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State’s evidence consisted only of proof of motive and character assassination. Appellant claims that the “evidence fell far short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] was the criminal agent in the murder of his wife.” “Our function in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence ⁵⁴⁹ in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Traverso v. State, 83 Md.App. 389, 395 , 574 A.2d 923 , cert. denied, 320 Md. 801 , 580 A.2d 219 (1990) (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals, in Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980), explained the test used to determine whether a homicide was wilful, deliberate, and premeditated and thus in the first degree: For a killing to be “wilful” there must be a specific purpose and intent to kill; to be “deliberate” there must be a full and conscious knowledge of the purpose to kill; and to be “premeditated” the design to kill must have preceded the killing by an appreciable length of time, that is, time enough to be deliberate. It is unnecessary that the deliberation or premeditation shall have existed for any particular length of time.

Their existence is discerned from the facts of the case. Id. at 717-18 , 415 A.2d 830 . A conviction of first degree murder may rest on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are considered collectively, “with the final analysis affording the basis of an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 536 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990) .

Circumstantial evidence is viewed, “ ‘not like a chain which falls when its weakest link is broken, but ... like a cable ... [which] “does not depend upon one strand.” ’ ” Id. (citations omitted). “When proof of fact is based on circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact need not be satisfied ‘beyond a reasonable doubt of each link in the chain of circumstances relied upon.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). Weighing the credibility of the witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the evidence are tasks proper for the fact finder.

Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 580 , 583 A.2d 1037 (1991) . It is also the jury’s function to resolve any evidentiary conflicts. Colvin v. State, 299 Md. 88, 112 , 472 A.2d 953 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873 , 105 S.Ct. 226 , 83 L.Ed.2d 155 (1984). In performing its fact finding role, the jury is free to accept the evidence that it believes and reject that which it does not ⁵⁵⁰ believe.

Muir v. State, 64 Md.App. 648, 654 , 498 A.2d 666 (1985), aff'd, 308 Md. 208 , 517 A.2d 1105 (1986). Based on the evidence in the case sub judice, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of first-degree murder. Appellant gave the police inconsistent explanations for crossing the street where he found his wife’s body. Appellant told the police that he was standing in his driveway and something unusual attracted his attention.

Appellant’s son testified that he could see his mother’s feet and legs when standing on the front lawn of the Snyder residence and in the street; however, Detectives Duckworth and Ramsey and Officer Martin testified that it was impossible to see the victim’s body from the driveway or the street because the body was in a ravine behind the vehicles parked on the road. Moreover, Martin, Ramsey, and Duckworth testified that they could not see anything unusual in the wooded area