Thompson v. State

ADKINS, J. In this case we are asked to apply revisions enacted in 2008 to Maryland Code (2001, 2006 Cum.Supp.), Section 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article (CP), granting expanded remedies to certain convicted persons based on DNA evidence. We must decide whether to apply the 2008 revisions to this case, even though it was decided by the postconviction court, and appealed to this Court, before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the new law. We shall hold that the 2008 revisions apply to this case, meaning that Petitioner has a direct right of appeal to this Court, and that, as we vacate the postconviction court’s order, on remand Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the more liberal standard set by the 2008 legislation for determining his eligibility for a new trial. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On August 2, 1987, Colleen Williar was found dead in her home.

She was nude and had been stabbed, strangled, and sexually assaulted. The Petitioner, James Thompson, lived near her home. The day after Williar’s body was discovered, Thompson approached police with a knife and told them that he found the knife in a grassy area near Williar’s home. He surrendered the knife to the police and also turned over a pair of bloodstained cut-off jeans he claimed he was wearing when he found the knife.

In an interview with police a few days later, Thompson revealed that the knife belonged to him and went missing ⁶⁶⁸ prior to August 1st. According to Thompson, his purported accomplice, James Owens, told him where to find the knife on the morning of August 2nd. Thompson also told police that when disclosing the location of the knife, Owens told him that he had sex with and “ ‘copped dope from’ ” Williar. Based on these allegations and other circumstantial evidence, Owens was charged as the sole perpetrator of the rape and murder of Williar.

Trial Of James Owens Owens’s trial began in February, 1988. In the months leading up to the trial, police and the prosecutor conducted multiple interviews of Thompson, during which his story changed several times. The prosecutor from Owens’s trial testified at Thompson’s trial that on February 26,1988: I brought [Thompson] in and I went over his testimony for what may have been the sixth time and I pointed out to him that the business about him finding the knife is where the defense attorney is going to hammer at him and that he’s going to look silly and isn’t it time that he finally leveled with us and told us the truth about how that knife really got back into his possession. Thompson expressed concern about changing his story and then stated that, rather than finding the knife, Owens brought him the knife the morning after the murder.

Later that day, Thompson was called as a State’s witness. His testimony was inconsistent with the chronology of events the morning after the murder and appeared so untruthful that the prosecutor was worried about the “prognosis of the case[.]” Over the following weekend, the prosecutor asked detectives to collect blood and pubic hair samples from Thompson in the hopes of proving that Thompson was not a participant in the crime. Thompson provided the samples voluntarily on February 28,1988. The prosecutor testified that after receiving the result of the pubic hair testing, Thompson “was clearly a suspect” and he sent detectives to bring Thompson in for ⁶⁶⁹ questioning on February 29, 1988.

Detective Dunnigan testified that he began the interview by telling Thompson that he was in “a lot of trouble and that he could not get in any more trouble he [was] already in.” According to Sergeant Landsman, who was also present, they told Thompson he would be “charged with something[,]” but would not specify what. They also told Thompson that his blood and hair had been found at the scene, though at the time they said this, they did not know whether this was true. Dunnigan later testified that each time they provided him with more details about this evidence, Thompson’s story changed. During the interrogation, Thompson provided at least four new versions of the story: (1) that he had broken into Williar’s house and stolen jewelry, but only after police had investigated and left the home; (2) that he went into the house after Owens had left, remained on the first floor and looked at the electronics in the house; (3) that he and Owens entered before Williar was killed and that he waited in the living room during the burglary with Owens; and (4) that he had hidden in the upstairs bathroom and seen Owens attacking Williar.

After the fourth version of the story, the detectives reminded Thompson that the hair evidence found on the victim’s buttocks was pubic hair, at which point Thompson told the detectives that he had been in Williar’s bedroom when Owens attacked her, and that he masturbated during the attack, which would account for the pubic hair. Police believed this version of the story was sufficient so the interrogation ended. Thompson was taken directly to the witness stand, and testified that he and Owens broke into Williar’s home by breaking a basement window and began “rummaging through the drawers in the bedroom” on the second floor. Thompson testified that during the course of the burglary, Williar came home and proceeded up the steps to the second floor.

At this point, Thompson hid in the bathroom and Owens assaulted Williar when she entered the bedroom. Thompson testified that when Owens began hitting Williar in the face, he came out of the bathroom and encouraged Owens to leave. Owens threw Williar on the bed and ⁶⁷⁰ beat and raped her while Thompson watched. Thompson testified that he “had [his] privates and things out[,]” masturbated, and ejaculated.

Thompson testified that after Owens raped Williar, he stabbed her in the chest. According to Thompson, Owens threw Williar on the bed and threw the knife on the floor in the hallway. Thompson testified that he picked up the knife and fled with Owens. Thompson was taken into police custody after he left the courtroom.

On March 2, 1998, Owens was convicted, inter alia, of felony murder and burglary, but was acquitted of the rape. On April 7, 1988, Owens’s counsel represented that Thompson “was tricked by the police” into making his statement and that he lied under oath. These assertions formed the basis for a new trial motion on behalf of Owens, which was denied. Trial Of James Thompson Thompson’s testimony at Owens’s trial was later presented against him at his own trial.

The State presented corroborating evidence from criminalist Mark Profili that the blood found on Thompson’s pants was type A — the same type as Williar’s — and that one of the pubic hairs found on the victim’s back matched the sample taken from Thompson. Profili also testified that a pubic hair was found on Colleen Williar that did not match Williar, Thompson, or Owens. Pathologist Dennis Smyth, M.D. testified that semen was found in Williar’s vagina and that the sperm were disintegrating, a process that occurs “from seven to twenty-four hours after they are deposited.” Dr. Smyth explained the sperm disintegration timeline, which inferentially placed the deposit time near Williar’s death: “They start disintegration almost immediately. They will be undetectable or totally disintegrated in a time span of seven to twenty-four hours.” The defense did not present any witnesses.

In closing argument, the State told the jury that sperm taken from Williar during the autopsy came from the rapist. The State emphasized that the blood found on Thompson’s jeans was the same blood type of Colleen Williar and linked ⁶⁷¹ this with testimony that blood of an unspecified type 1 was found on the murder weapon: [T]hat knife is the murder weapon. It is positive for blood. It is consistent with the wound on Colleen Williar’s body and also these pants.

James Thompson’s shorts, if you will. They test positive in this corner of the pocket for a positive blood. That is the blood of Colleen Williar. He said when he got the knife the knife was bloody and he put the knife in his pants.

Clearly the blood from the knife. And we know there was blood on the knife. It had seeped onto his shorts and he didn’t notice. (Emphasis added.) The prosecutor also linked the burglary, rape, and murder as having been committed by the same persons at the same time: ...

Colleen Williar didn’t let some man in who came in upstairs, slept with her and then killed her. No. The people who broke the glass in the basement were the same people who came upstairs, forced themselves on her body on her bed and left the glass while they were doing it. The State also pointed to, inter alia, Thompson’s confession and the pubic hair match. The defense’s closing argument called into question the pubic hair testimony, particularly the hair that did not belong to the victim, did not belong to Thompson, and did not belong to Owens.

Defense counsel posed the question “Was there a third person?” The defense also suggested that Thompson’s testimony at Owens’s trial was not a confession because “Thompson was only saying what the State ... [and] the police wanted him to say.” Thompson was convicted of rape, burglary, felony murder, and a weapons offense. He was sentenced to life in prison ⁶⁷² plus a three-year sentence for the weapons offense. The sentences were merged. Motion for Release of Evidence to Conduct DNA Analysis On July 20, 2004, Thompson filed a Motion for Release of Evidence to Conduct DNA Analysis in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City pursuant to CP Section 8-201.

On August 31, 2005, the Circuit Court denied Thompson’s motion on the ground that Thompson had not addressed CP Section 8-201(c)(2) to establish that “the requested DNA test employs a method of testing generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.” On November 17, 2005 the postconviction court granted a motion for reconsideration, vacated its order of August 31, 2005, and granted in part the petition for DNA testing. Thompson appealed the partial denial to this Court and we reversed the denial in an October 2006 opinion in which we gave Thompson the testing he requested. 2 Petition For Postconviction Relief And Motion For New Trial On December 15, 2006, Thompson filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief and Motion for New Trial. Thompson contended that “[njewly discovered DNA testing conclusively establishes that two innocent men were wrongly convicted for the 1987 rape and murder of Colleen Williar.” The motion stated that the laboratory results excluded both Owens and Thompson as depositors of the sperm on the cytology slide and that the testing on Thompson’s blue jeans at the location ⁶⁷³ of the bloodstain showed that the blood did not come from the victim. Owens, through separate counsel, also filed for relief.

At Thompson’s June 27, 2007 hearing, it was revealed that the State joined in Owens’s petition for a new trial because the newly discovered evidence would assist the defense and was not available in 1987, but that the State did not take this posture toward Thompson’s postconviction case. In the postconviction court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, issued October 5, 2007, it denied the Petition for Post Conviction Relief. The postconviction court collectively addressed the following two allegations of error by Thompson: 1. The Petitioner is entitled to a new trial because the jury did not fairly consider the real controversy and because the State’s theory of the ease has been refuted. 2.

The Petitioner claims that neither the false confession nor the microscopic hair analysis outweighs the DNA evidence. The postconviction court acknowledged that DNA evidence has a “strong and almost persuasive finality in criminal law” as well as in “countless case law where people have confessed to things for which they did not commit or professed their innocence and have DNA evidence exculpate them from the crime they were accused.” The postconviction court went on to address Thompson’s felony murder conviction and stated that the DNA evidence removed the possibility that Thompson was the rapist: The Petitioner in the instant matter professed his innocence regarding the actual perpetration of this murder. His story evolved to include not only breaking into the home but willfully standing by as the victim was raped. The Petitioner initially claimed that he was not involved in the murder but was a concerned citizen who had located the murder weapon.

Subsequently, he claimed that he was a mere burglar and never touched the victim. Despite the evolution of his story, there has been little shown to refute the actual testimony he gave at the trial of James Owens. At ⁶⁷⁴ the trial of James Owens, the Petitioner admitted his involvement in the crime as a burglar. [Defense Counsel]: So what you’re feeling is that you’re a burglar, but you’re not a killer, right? [Thompson]: That is exactly right. The Petitioner under oath retold the story of how James Owens and he broke into the house of the victim, Collen Williar, ransacked the apartment as the Petitioner watched as another person raped and murdered the victim while he masturbated.

The Court does take notice of the inconsistencies between the DNA evidence and the evidence at trial. Nonetheless, this Court has examined the ever-evolving story of the Petitioner from the time of the James Owens trial to that of his own. The State was adamant in its assessment that the Petitioner participated not only in the burglary but also the rape and murder. The State utilized the confession of James Thompson at the trial of James Owens in addition to the blood found on his pants, the pubic hairs discovered on the victim and the spermatozoa evidence.

The evidence was collected and used against the Petitioner to convict him of first-degree felony murder, rape and burglary. The DNA evidence eliminates the possibility that the Petitioner had in fact raped the victim. Furthermore, the evidence presented at the Post Conviction hearing usurps the State’s arguments all together concerning the scientific evidence in regard to the semen, pubic hairs and blood on the Petitioner’s clothing. Thus, this Court is convinced because of the prevailing evidence that the Petitioner was not the actual rapist.

The postconviction court concluded that the DNA evidence did not remove Thompson from the scene of the crime and thus could not exculpate him on a felony murder charge: However, the standard as provided in the Maryland Rules does not require this Court to examine the weight of evidence or even the efficiency of counsel. The standard before this Court is whether the DNA evidence will excul ⁶⁷⁵ pate the Petitioner from the crime for which he was convicted. Maryland Rules 4-331(c)(3). The Petitioner was convicted of felony murder, the underlying felony being burglary.

It seems readily apparent from the Petitioner’s testimony that he indeed burglarized the home of the victim the night of the murder. The DNA evidence does not remove the Petitioner from the scene of the crime. The DNA evidence does eliminate the Petitioner from being the ultimate rapist. Yet, even in the Petitioner’s testimony at the trial of James Owens, he never claims to be the actual murderer or rapist.

His claim was that he stood by as the event occurred. Since the DNA evidence does not show that the Petitioner is innocent of the underlying crime of burglary, coupled with his confession stating that he burglarized the house as the victim was murdered, this Court does not concur with the Petitioner that the DNA evidence exculpates him of the primary crime of which he was accused-felony murder. This Court denies the Petitioner’s Motion for a New Trial. Appeals On October 26, 2007, Thompson filed, inter alia, 3 a Notice of Appeal to this Court under CP Section 8-201(j)(6).

On June 9, 2008, the Court of Special Appeals issued the following order: ORDERED, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-132 and CP § 8 — 201(j)(6), that appellant’s October 26, 2007 “Notice to the Court of Appeals in the above-captioned action from the Circuit Court’s Order, dated October 5, 2007, denying his Petition for Postconviction Relief and Motion for New Trial” is hereby transferred to the Court of Appeals of Maryland; and, it is further ORDERED that, pending the conclusion of proceedings in the Court of Appeals on the matter being transferred, all ⁶⁷⁶ further proceedings in this Court are hereby STAYED concerning (a) appellant’s October 26, 2007 direct appeal to this Court, (b) appellant’s October 26, 2007 application for leave to appeal to this Court, and (c) appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s October 26, 2007 direct appeal to this Court. We issued a writ of certiorari on September 10, 2008. Thompson presents the following questions: I. Whether the postconviction court failed to use the proper standard for evaluating DNA evidence pursuant to CP Section 8-201?

II

Whether the postconviction court erred by denying Thompson’s request for a new trial based on DNA testing results? I. Jurisdiction The State’s brief commences with a motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court does not have direct or certiorari jurisdiction to hear this matter. Direct Appellate Jurisdiction Under CP Section 8-201(j)(6) The State contends that Thompson does not have available to him a direct appeal arising under CP Section 8-201(j)(6) because this provision, at the time of Thompson’s postconviction proceeding, only provided for direct appeal when the postconviction court either (1) does not order DNA testing; (2) does not open or reopen a postconviction proceeding; or (8) orders destruction of evidence over the defendant’s objection. The State argues that because these provisions do not encompass Thompson’s challenge to the postconviction court’s denial of his motion for new trial, his appeal is precluded from review by this Court.

At the time of Thompson’s appeal in 2007, CP Section 8-201(j)(6) provided: “[a]n appeal to the court of appeals may be ⁶⁷⁷ taken from an order entered under subsection (c), (h)(2), or (j)(4) of this section.” 4 Subsection (c) provides a postconviction petitioner a direct appeal to this Court if the postconviction court does not order DNA testing, but DNA testing was ordered here. Subsection (h)(2) provides petitioners with a method of direct review when the Circuit Court does not open or reopen a postconviction proceeding pursuant to Sections 7-102 and 104 of the Criminal Procedure Article. Here, however, the postconviction court did reopen Thompson’s petition. 5 Because Thompson did not meet any of the prerequisites for ⁶⁷⁸ appeal provided by the 2007 version of CP Section 8 — 201(j)(6), he has no avenue for appeal under that iteration of the statute. CP Section 8-201 was revised in 2008 to provide, inter alia, broader appeal rights and more liberal standards for the granting of new trials.

The General Assembly, in Chapter 337 of the Acts of 2008, effective January 1, 2009, modified the appeal provisions of CP Section 8-201 to read as follows: “[a]n appeal to the court of appeals may be taken from an order entered under this section.” CP § 8 — 201(k)(6). CP Section 8-201 was also modified to add a new subsection (c) providing: New trial. — A petitioner may move for a new trial under this section on the grounds that the conviction was based on unreliable scientific identification evidence and a substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted without the evidence. The revised statute also added a new subsection (i)(2), which contains the following new trial provision: (2) If the results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the petitioner, the court shall: (i) if no postconviction proceeding has been previously initiated by the petitioner under § 7-102 of this article, open a postconviction proceeding under § 7-102 of this article; (ii) if a postconviction proceeding has been previously initiated by the petitioner under § 7-102 of this article, reopen a postconviction proceeding under § 7-104 of this article; or (iii) on a finding that a substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted if the DNA testing results had been known or introduced at trial, order a new trial. (3) If the court finds that a substantial possibility does not exist under paragraph (2)(iii) of this subsection, the court may order a new trial if the court determines that the action is in the interest of justice.

(Emphasis added.) Thompson contends that we should apply both the new trial and appeal modifications retroactively and allow this appeal. ⁶⁷⁹ Retroactive Application During oral argument before this Court both parties agreed that there was no legislative history that would shed light on the legislative intent regarding retroactive application of the appeal or new trial provisions in CP Section 8-201. Our legislative research has likewise proved to be unfruitful. Thus, we look to our jurisprudence on the subject of retroactivity. “The terms ‘retroactive’ and ‘retrospective’ are synonymous in judicial usage and may be employed interchangeably. They describe acts which operate on transactions which have occurred or rights and obligations which existed before passage of the act.” 2 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, § 41.1, at 372-73 (6th ed.2001) (footnote omitted).

In a recent decision of this Court, also involving CP Section 8-201, Judge Barbera summarized Maryland law of retroactivity: Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively; consequently, absent manifest legislative intent to the contrary, statutes may not be given retrospective or retroactive application. See Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396, 406 , 754 A.2d 389, 394 (2000). There are, however, exceptions to the presumption that legislation is to be applied prospectively. “One such category of exceptions concerns legislative enactments that apply to procedural changes.” Id. at 406-07 , 754 A.2d 389 [.] Legislative enactments that have remedial effect and do not impair vested rights also are given retrospective application. Langston, 359 Md. at 408 , 754 A.2d at 395 . “ ‘Generally, remedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement of rights and the redress of injuries.’ ” Id.

Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698, 714-15 , 976 A.2d 999, 1008 (2009) (some citations omitted). We also said in Gregg that CP Section 8-201 is “procedural in nature” and “is also a remedial statute, as its purpose is to provide a remedy for persons convicted of serious crimes of which they are actually innocent.” Id. ⁶⁸⁰ Although Gregg said that CP Section 8-201 was procedural, it was not addressing the right of appeal set forth in subsection (j)(6)- 6 Because it is unclear whether, in this context, the right of appeal is a procedural or substantive right, we examine whether the amendment to subsection (j)(6) fits within the Gregg rule as a remedial enactment, which can be applied retroactively. Thompson contends that he was actually innocent and that DNA evidence, not offered at his earlier trial, will persuade the jury to acquit him. The postconviction court found, based on the new DNA evidence, that Thomson did not rape the victim.

But the court denied him a new trial based on this evidence because “the DNA evidence [does not] exculpate[] him of the primary crime of which he was accused — felony murder.” Thompson seeks to appeal this decision, taking advantage of the 2008 revisions to CP Section 8-201, which would give him two remedies: (1) a more liberal standard— “substantial possibility” of acquittal — for proving the right to a new trial than the Rule 4-331 standard, which requires a showing of actual innocence; and (2) a direct right of appeal to the Court of Appeals. His goal is to persuade the postconviction court that, in light of the new DNA evidence, he should have his case re-adjudicated by a fact-finder and thereby redress a wrongful conviction. We conclude that these new provisions are remedial in nature as they allow him to reach the substantive issue of guilt by lowering the bar to obtaining a new trial and according greater access to this Court. Thus, under Gregg , the expanded right of appeal accorded by the 2008 statute should be applied retroactively.

But Thompson has one more hurdle to surpass before his right to appeal to this Court is secured. CP Section 8-201 grants a right to appeal from “an order entered under this section.” Thompson must persuade us that the denial of his ⁶⁸¹ new trial motion was made under CP Section 8-201. Thompson’s dilemma is that he made his motion pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-331, the general rule governing motions for new trial. Presumably, he did not file the motion for new trial under Section 8-201 because he could not — at that time, the postconviction court had no authority to grant a new trial under CP Section 8-201.

So, we must decide whether, for purposes of the Section 8-102(k)(6) right of appeal, we will treat his Rule 4-331 motion as the equivalent of a CP Section 8-201(c) or (i)(2) motion. This is more than a question about retroactivity, although retroactivity is involved. What makes the issue more than a mere question of retroactivity is that, by deeming his 4-331 motion to be an 8-201 motion, we open up the potential for reversing or vacating the postconviction court for failing to do something that the statute did not permit it to do at the time its order was issued. This is a concern.

Yet, to say that Thompson cannot receive the benefit of the remedial provisions of CP Section 8-201 simply because he failed to foresee the enactment of this legislation in characterizing his motion, would be contrary to the retroactivity analysis we just made. He made a motion for new trial, and he sought other relief under the then existing terms of CP Section 8-201. We see nothing else he could have done. Changes in the law during the pendency of a case create conundrums for trial and appellate courts.

But whether the change is statutory or by judicial modification of the common law, there is certainly precedent for asking lower courts to reconsider matters under new standards that did not exist when they initially decided the case. See, e.g., Hiligh v. State, 375 Md. 456 , 825 A.2d 1108 (2003); Facon v. State, 375 Md. 435 , 825 A.2d 1096 (2003); Williams v. State, 375 Md. 404 , 825 A.2d 1078 (2003). 7 For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that, for purposes of applying the CP Section 8-201(k)(6) right of direct appeal, Thompson shall be deemed to have “taken [his appeal] ⁶⁸² from an order entered under [that] section.” Thus, we hear this case as a direct appeal under CP Section 8-201(k)(6). The State’s Other Jurisdictional Challenges Our conclusions above also dispose of the State’s jurisdiction arguments that (1) this Court is divested of certiorari jurisdiction in this matter because Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol.), Section 12-202 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CP”) precludes our assuming jurisdiction when the Court of Special Appeals has granted an application for leave to appeal, but has not yet decided the matter because of its stay order and (2) Thompson failed to exercise the due diligence requirement of Maryland Rule 4-331 because he was aware of the availability of DNA testing at the time of trial and the evidence is therefore not “newly discovered.” Because we assert our jurisdiction only pursuant to the direct review provision of CP Section 8-201 and do not take up the appeals based on Maryland Rule 4-331 or the Application for Leave to appeal, we need not address these challenges by the State.

II

DISCUSSION When the postconviction court analyzed Thompson’s CP Section 8-201 claim, it employed Maryland Rule 4-331(c)(3) as the applicable standard: ⁶⁸³ [T]he standard as provided in the Maryland Rules does not require this Court to examine the weight of evidence or even the efficiency of counsel. The standard before this Court is whether the DNA evidence will exculpate the Petitioner from the crime for which he was convicted. Maryland Rule 4-331(c)(3). Thompson argues that this was the wrong standard and the State concedes the point.

The State also concedes that, if we have jurisdiction, we should remand the case “to the [postconviction] court for reconsideration under the appropriate standard.” 8 Thompson advances a substantial or reasonable possibility test: For DNA claims presented pursuant to the procedures set forth in CP § 8-201, the appropriate standard is that used in evaluating other types of newly discovered evidence, such as that presented in Brady claims: whether there is a substantial or “reasonable possibility” that the newly