State v. Raines

KARWACKI, Judge. Ronald Lee Raines and Lawrence Wayne Bentley, the respondents, were convicted at a bench trial in the Circuit ⁵⁸⁵ Court for Baltimore County of the first degree premeditated murder of Cynthia Southern. The questions we shall address are whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the convictions of Raines, as a principal in the first degree, and Bentley, as a principal in the second degree, of that murder. I. The events preceding the murder of Cynthia Southern began on the morning of January 7, 1990, when Bentley went to his father’s home and took his father’s .32 caliber automatic pistol to have it refinished for him as a belated Christmas gift.

Bentley placed the pistol in his pick-up truck and then proceeded to meet Raines at about 11:30 a.m. The pair visited a few bars where they drank beer. As Bentley was driving from a bar in Sykesville, Raines grabbed the pistol and fired it at a passing automobile. Bentley then drove the truck back to the bar that he and Raines had just left, and Raines fired a shot through the window of the bar.

Bentley then headed for Ellicott City where Raines fired a shot into the home of an acquaintance, Hymie Kelley. Raines and Bentley next went to the Eight Mile House bar on Frederick Road outside of Ellicott City. After playing pool and drinking beer, Bentley and Raines left and proceeded to the Baltimore beltway, where Bentley drove north towards Towson. As Bentley was passing a tractor-trailer, Raines, after announcing that he was going to shoot at the tires of the tractor-trailer, discharged the pistol in the direction of the window on the operator’s side of the cab of the tractor.

The bullet shattered the window and struck Cynthia Southern, the tractor operator, in the head behind her left ear. She died shortly thereafter. Joseph T. Fales was driving behind the tractor-trailer at approximately 7:40 p.m. Fales noticed a “puff or burst” come from the tractor-trailer, and he immediately thereafter drove through a pile of glass.

The tractor-trailer swerved ⁵⁸⁶ on and off the highway before it finally collided with a guardrail and came to a stop. When Fales went to the cab of the tractor-trailer, he found the driver slumped over with a massive head wound behind her left ear. It was stipulated that the bullet that caused Southern’s death came from the gun Raines fired. Detective Philip G. Marll of the Baltimore County Police Department arrived at the scene sometime after midnight.

Marll observed that the driver’s side window of the tractor-trailer was broken out, and all the glass was gone. None of its tires were deflated. Raines was subsequently arrested and made several statements to Detective Marll. Marll testified that Raines initially denied being on the Baltimore beltway that evening, but then stated that he was with Bentley when Bentley shot the tractor-trailer driver.

Raines then gave a third statement where he admitted: “I lied. I shot the driver. I know I did it, but I don’t remember doing it.” Raines said that Bentley gave him the gun after they left the Eight Mile House bar. Marll testified that Raines said he remembered pointing the gun up at the truck, and he was going to shoot the tires and the top of the truck.

Raines told Marll that his brother, Walter Raines, disposed of the gun by throwing it into the Patapsco River. The weapon was recovered from the river. Marll then arrested Bentley. Bentley gave a chronology of the events which occurred on January 7.

When asked about the shooting at Hymie Kelley’s house, Bentley first denied it, and then he said that Raines fired the shot, and that the gun belonged to Raines. Bentley said that Raines showed a third person the gun and said that he, Raines, was going to kill Hymie Kelley. Bentley told Detective Marll that he and Raines went to the Eight Mile House bar at approximately six or seven o’clock. While Raines was shooting pool, Bentley saw the gun hanging out of the back of Raines’s pants.

Bentley took the gun and dropped it on the floor. Bentley then left the bar and put the gun in his truck. Bentley told Marll that Raines got in the truck and ⁵⁸⁷ took the gun. Bentley proceeded to drive to the beltway, heading toward Towson.

As Bentley drove past the tractor-trailer, Raines pointed to the truck and said he was going to shoot the tractor-trailer’s tires. As they passed the tractor-trailer, Bentley heard the gun go off, and he saw the tractor-trailer slow down and pull off to the side of the road. Bentley told Marll that he had wanted to stop, but Raines said no, “[I]t just went through the glass and through the cab.” Bentley said that Raines threatened to shoot him, so he took Raines to a bar. Bentley slept in the car for several hours until Raines was ready to leave the bar.

Bentley then drove Raines and a woman that Raines met at the bar to the woman’s house where they spent the night. The next day Bentley and Raines learned that warrants had been issued for their arrest, and they left the state. Raines and Bentley were charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in the statutory form with the murder of Cynthia Southern and with the use of a handgun in the commission of that crime. Bentley testified on his own behalf at the trial.

He again gave a chronology of the events of the day. He indicated, however, that he lied about one thing in his statement to Marll. Bentley stated that after Raines shot at the tractor-trailer, Raines did not say that the bullet went through the cab. Bentley testified that Raines had really said that he shot between two trucks.

Judge James T. Smith, Jr. convicted both Raines and Bentley of first degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The trial court, in a lengthy oral opinion, found that Raines aimed and shot at the tractor-trailer window intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation. The court explained: “Now, in this case, I don’t just have his statement that he rolled the window down and he put the gun out and shot. I have the physical evidence as to where he shot by where the bullet ended up. “Clearly, he aimed right at the driver’s window, and he aimed at the driver’s window in such a way that he was ⁵⁸⁸ bound to hit the driver of the vehicle, from the position where the bullet entered the victim’s neck behind her left ear.” The trial judge further found that Bentley supplied Raines with the gun, knew that Raines had been shooting the gun all day and knew that Raines was going to shoot at the truck.

Judge Smith sentenced both Raines and Bentley to life imprisonment for first degree murder and to concurrent five year terms for the handgun violation. All but thirty years of Bentley’s sentence of life imprisonment was suspended. Raines and Bentley appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for first degree murder. The intermediate appellate court in an unreported opinion held that the evidence did not show a specific intent to kill on the part of either Raines or Bentley.

Rather, the court concluded that the evidence did support a conviction for the “depraved heart” variety of second-degree murder. Consequently, the court reversed the convictions and sentences for first degree murder, directed that convictions of guilty to second degree murder be entered, and ordered that Raines and Bentley be resentenced accordingly. We granted the State’s petition for certiorari to review that decision.

II

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is “whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979) (footnote omitted), quoted in McMillian v. State, 325 Md. 272, 289 , 600 A.2d 430, 438 (1992); Reed v. State, 316 Md. 521, 526 , 560 A.2d 1104, 1106 (1989); Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 510 , 495 A.2d 1, 13 (1985), cert denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 868 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). The appropriate inquiry then is not whether we believe that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a ⁵⁸⁹ reasonable doubt; “[i]nstead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence 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.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 573 (emphasis in original); quoted in McMillian, 325 Md. at 289-90 , 600 A.2d at 438-39 ; Webber v. State, 320 Md. 238, 248 , 577 A.2d 58, 63 (1990); Tichnell v.. State, 287 Md. 695, 717 , 415 A.2d 830, 842 (1980). Moreover, when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a non-jury trial, the judgment of the trial court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

Md.Rule 8-131(c). See Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 535 , 573 A.2d 831, 833 (1990); West v. State, 312 Md. 197, 207 , 539 A.2d 231, 235-36 (1988); Dixon v. State, 302 Md. 447, 450 , 488 A.2d 962, 963 (1985). Within this scope of review, we separately consider whether the convictions of Raines and Bentley were adequately supported by the evidence.

III

Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 407 includes within its definition of first degree murder: “[A]ll murder which shall be perpetrated ... by any kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing.” We have explained: “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.” Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717-18 , 415 A.2d 830, 842 (1980). See Chisley v. State, 202 Md. 87, 106 , 95 A.2d 577, 585-86 (1953) (quoting L. Hochheimer, The Law of Crimes ⁵⁹⁰ and Criminal Procedure § 347 (1904)). However short the period between the intention and the act, if the killing results from a choice made as the consequence of thought, the crime is characterized as deliberate and premeditated murder.

Tichnell, 287 Md. at 718 , 415 A.2d at 842 ; Chisley, 202 Md. at 106-07 , 95 A.2d at 586 . In the instant case, the trial court explicitly found that Raines shot at the tractor trailer window intentionally, deliberately, and with premeditation. In so finding, the trial court rejected the statement given to the police by Raines that he only intended to shoot at the tires and the top of the truck. The Court of Special Appeals made its own assessment of the testimony and decided otherwise.

The court stated: “In his statement to the police, [Raines] said that he was aiming at the tires and at the top of the cab. The movement of the target, poor marksmanship, and alcohol can all explain the bullet’s final resting place. Furthermore, all of the testimony as to intent supports a ‘depraved heart’ murder theory of the case. The testimony of the appellant Bentley and the statement of the appellant Raines indicate that there was no specific intent to kill.” This analysis indicates that the Court of Special Appeals credited the Raines’s version of the events, one that necessarily mitigated his culpability.

Of course, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter for the trial court, as fact finder, not the appellate court, to resolve. Md.Rule 8-131(c). See Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 535 , 573 A.2d 831, 833 (1990); Brooks v. State, 277 Md. 155,162 , 353 A.2d 217, 221 (1976); Johnson and Carroll v. State, 238 Md. 643, 644 , 210 A.2d 399, 400 (1965) (per curiam); McDowell v. State, 231 Md. 205, 211 , 189 A.2d 611, 614 (1963); Weaver v. State, 226 Md. 431, 436 , 174 A.2d 76, 78 (1961). Furthermore, the determination of an accused’s intention is, in the first instance, for the trial judge, when sitting without a jury, and this determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Taylor v. State, 238 Md. 424, 433 , 209 ⁵⁹¹ A.2d 595, 600 (1965). As noted, the trial court discounted Raines’s version of the events. Instead, the court drew an inference based on other evidence offered at trial that the killing was intentional, deliberate and premeditated. This, the trial court, as fact finder, has the exclusive right to do.

The Court of Special Appeals erred in conducting its own independent credibility analysis and in rejecting the trial court’s finding of facts. The fact that Raines did not admit that he shot the tractor-trailer driver with the intent to kill does not preclude his conviction of first degree murder. This Court has noted that the trier of fact may infer the intent to kill from the surrounding circumstances: “[Sjince intent is subjective and, without the cooperation of the accused, cannot be directly and objectively proven, its presence must be shown by established facts which permit a proper inference of its existence.” State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156,167 , 571 A.2d 1227,1233 (1990), quoting Davis v. State, 204 Md. 44, 51 , 102 A.2d 816, 819 (1954). Therefore, intent must be determined by a consideration of the accused’s acts, conduct and words.

Taylor, 238 Md. at 433 , 209 A.2d at 600 . It is well established that under the proper circumstances, an intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human body. Earp, 319 Md. at 167 , 571 A.2d at 1233 ; Chisley, 202 Md. at 105 , 95 A.2d at 585 . In rejecting the trial court’s finding that Raines shot at the truck intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation, the Court of Special Appeals cited Smith v. State, 41 Md.App. 277 , 398 A.2d 426 , cert, denied, 284 Md. 748 (1979).

Smith , instead of negating the trial court’s finding, actually supports it. In Smith , the evidence showed that Smith got into an argument with the victim at a bar. Smith left the bar, procured a shotgun from a nearby home and shot the victim immediately upon returning to the bar. Recognizing that the intent to kill may be inferred from the act of directing a dangerous weapon at a vital part of the human anatomy, the Court of Special Appeals held that, despite ⁵⁹² Smith’s claim that the gun went off accidentally, the jury legitimately could have concluded that the murder was wilful, deliberate and premeditated.

Id. at 279-83 , 398 A.2d at 429-31 . Similarly, in the present case, there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the murder of Cynthia Southern was wilful, deliberate, and premeditated. The physical evidence revealed that the shot fired by Raines shattered the window on the driver’s side of the tractor cab and then struck the victim, who was operating the tractor-trailer, in the head. This evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Raines aimed and fired the pistol at the victim’s head.

See Ferrell v. State, 304 Md. 679, 684 , 500 A.2d 1050, 1053 (1985) (from the facts that Ferrell used both hands to aim in dim light and shot each victim above the torso, a jury could infer that he aimed for the victims’ heads and intended to kill each). In reaching its decision in the instant case, the Court of Special Appeals relied in part upon the following passage on “depraved heart” murder from R. Gilbert & C. Moylan, Maryland Criminal Law: Practice and Procedure § 1.6-3., at 21 (1983): “A classic example of the depraved