Young v. State

Raker, J. Appellant Steven Young appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute, possession of methadone with intent to distribute, possession of alprazolam with intent to distribute, possession of heroin, possession of oxycodone, possession of methadone, and possession of alprazolam. He raises the following two questions for our review, which we have rephrased and reordered: 1. Did the circuit court err when it excluded appellant’s evidence of written prescriptions for controlled substances when appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of and possession with intent to distribute those controlled substances? 2. Did the circuit court err by admitting appellant’s post-arrest statements without holding a suppression hearing or ruling on appellant’s motion to suppress based on an allegedly unlawful arrest?

We shall hold that the trial court erred by excluding as hearsay evidence of written prescriptions. The motion to suppress was not preserved for our review. Accordingly, we shall reverse in part and affirm in part. I. By indictment filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant was charged with crimes related to controlled dangerous substances found in a police search of a house on May 28, 2014.

The jury convicted appellant of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute, possession of methadone with intent to distribute, possession of alprazolam with intent to distribute, possession of heroin, possession of oxycodone, possession of methadone, and possession of alprazolam. The circuit court sentenced appellant to four terms of incarceration of thirteen years, one for each count of possession with intent to distribute, to be served concurrently. The following evidence was presented at trial: On May 28, 2014, Detective Manuel Larbi executed a search warrant at 2580 Marbourne Avenue in Baltimore (“the residence”). Detective Larbi had surveilled the residence for a number of weeks, and identified appellant in the warrant application as a person observed at the residence.

The application, however, only sought to search the residence—the form space on the warrant stating “on the person of’ was left blank. Immediately prior to executing the warrant, Detective Larbi conducted covert surveillance of the area around the residence, where he observed appellant and another man, Arnold Bowman, in the street working on a car. Their specific location was estimated to be anywhere from directly in front of the residence to two blocks away. 1 Detective Larbi’s team pulled up next to appellant and Mr, Bowman. The police officers got out of their cars, handcuffed the two men, searched them, and walked them to the residence.

The officers then brought the men into the residence to wait while the officers conducted their search. Inside the residence, officers found and detained appellant’s wife Angela Grubber. The officers advised all three persons of their rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Appellant told the officers “that he lived in the [residence]” and that he “did have some [drugs] in his bedroom.” In that bedroom, Detective Larbi found 32 pills of methadone, 7 pills of Xanax, and 3.5 grams of heroin.

Detective Larbi also discovered in a kitchen cabinet downstairs 3 plastic bags each containing 100 oxycodone pills, another plastic bag containing 42 oxycodone pills, and $1,498 cash. When confronted with the drugs, appellant told Detective Larbi that he “sells some of it from time to time.” The Statement of Probable Cause for appellant’s arrest listed appellant’s address as 504 Manor Road, Glen Bumie, MD 20160. The Statement was signed by Detective Larbi. On July 30, 2015, appellant filed a Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure and Request to Examine Affiant, entitled a “Franks Motion.” The Motion challenged Detective Larbi’s Application for Search and Seizure Warrant for the residence based on the truthfulness and timeliness of Detective Larbi’s affidavit that he had observed appellant at the residence selling drugs to a confidential informant, He also challenged the later Statement of Probable Cause (supporting Detective Larbi’s arrest of appellant) as containing factual errors, including as follows: “16.

According to a witness, Rachel Ann Bunner, and the Defendant when the Police came to serve the Search Warrant, the Defendant was a quarter block down the road and across the street working on a vehicle, a Green Ford Explorer with Arnold Bowman. Police spotted the Defendant, stopped and searched both men, then handcuffed them and took them to 2580 Marbourne Avenue. 17. The Defendant is not an occupant of that dwelling, he does not live there, nor receive mail at 2580 Marb-ourne Avenue. The Defendant does not have telephone service there, his name is not on the BGE account or the Lease.

In the Statement of Probable Cause Detective Larbi, under oath, put down Defendant’s address as 504 Manor Road, Glen Burnie, Maryland, but then alleged that the Defendant stated he lived at 2580 Marbourne Avenue. 18. Lastly, Detective Larbi claimed that the Defendant and Mr. Bowman failed to provide any prescriptions, that is false. The Defendant attempted to provide them to police during the incident and explained that he has valid prescriptions for Methadone, Xanax (alprazolam), and Percocet (a mixture of oxycodone and acetaminophen). The Defendant has also shown that his wife had valid prescriptions for Methadone, Xanax, and Percocet.” The motion was followed by a Memorandum of Law in support of the unlawful seizure claim on September 18, 2015, the State’s Response on October 27, 2015, and appellant’s Reply on November 12, 2015.

On January 13, 2016, the State orally moved in limine to suppress any evidence concerning the written prescriptions claimed by appellant. The State argued that the prescriptions constituted inadmissible hearsay and could not be authenticated as business records. The judge granted the motion before the State could finish and did not invite appellant’s counsel to respond before moving on to the next motion. Appellant’s counsel did not object to the ruling.

Following what appears to be a chambers conference, the hearing proceeded as follows: “[THE STATE]: And, Your Honor, the State’s second motion that we spoke in chambers is the exclusion. State’s moving a motion in limine to exclude any prescription evidence as it is, number one, hearsay, and, number two, not admissible hearsay because it does not fall within the exception of 803(6). Defense is trying to enter into evidence, number one, a prescription—an alleged prescription of the defendant and, number two, a prescription by his wife, Angela Grubber, who is not going to testify today. These are copies of alleged prescriptions.

They are not certified. The doctor is not present. There’s no certification or authenticity and it’s excluded under 803(6). I do have a case, Bryant v. State, by the Court of Special Appeals where in a murder trial the defense tried to enter in a piece of paper that was the alleged toxicology report because it was murder.

And the Court said it’s hearsay, number one, even if the defendant took the stand— [THE COURT]: Yeah. I’m familiar with that law because I had the very same issues several times. Okay. The motion is granted.

That leaves us to—the speedy trial ...” At the end of the day, the court postponed any hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress until the next morning, stating as follows: “[THE STATE]: We still have—we still have the motion issue to resolve. [THE COURT]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. [THE STATE]: Maybe that first thing in the morning? The witness has been here all day. He’s waiting outside of the courtroom, but he’s the same witness who would testify tomorrow as well. [THE COURT]: Who is it again? [THE STATE]: It’s Detective Larbi. [THE COURT]: Why can’t we take him real quick? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, because I’m going to be a long time with him. I cannot be restricted when I do cross-examination.

I never know. I can tell you five minutes. It could be a half hour. I never know.

It depends on what they bring out and what they don’t bring out. I mean there’s really no reason you can’t accommodate me knowing full well— [THE COURT]: Which accommodation are you asking for that I’m not giving you? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Recess until tomorrow. [THE COURT]: Oh, okay. [THE STATE]: If we recess until tomorrow, can we start the motion earlier? [THE COURT]: Yeah. I’m thinking— [THE STATE]: Like maybe start at 8:30 so at least we get the ball rolling. [THE COURT]: Unfortunately, every Friday I have a prior commitment. [THE STATE]: Tomorrow is Thursday. [THE COURT]: I m normally here at 7:30 in the morning. Friday— [THE STATE]: Tomorrow is Thursday. [THE COURT]: Oh, good.

I’m sorry. I got it all confused. It’s my age speaking. So Thursday—Thursday. [THE STATE]: Can we bring him in here by 8:30?

Can he be in here by 8:30? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: (indiscernible) It depends on the transportation. [THE COURT]: All right. Well, that’s the decision. We’re going to start at 9:00. We’re going to start at 9:00.” On January 14, at 9:42 a.m., the jury was sworn, and, significantly, the court did not address the suppression motion.

Appellant’s counsel did not mention the issue or request a hearing throughout the rest of the entire trial (nor did anyone else), and he did not object when the State introduced Detective Larbi’s testimony that included appellant’s statements. As discussed supra, appellant was convicted and sentenced. 2 This timely appeal followed.

II

Before this Court, appellant argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of appellant’s prescriptions as hearsay. Appellant claims that he did not offer the prescriptions for the truth of any matter asserted in them, but as a legal defense based on the language of the statutes, Maryland Code Ann., Crim. Law §§ 5-601, 5-602 (2002; 2012 Repl. Vol., 2015 Supp.). 3 Simple possession has a statutory exception for possession of prescribed medications, which the prescriptions could prove.

The prescriptions, according to appellant, provided a defense to the intent to distribute charges because a prescription provides alternative explanations for possession of a prescribed drug besides selling it. The prescriptions were probative of the asserted legal possession of the drugs, not the truth of any matter asserted in them. If the prescriptions were hearsay, appellant continued, physician’s orders fall squarely within the Maryland Rule 5—803(b)(4) exception for statements “made for purposes of medical treatment.” 4 Appellant argues also that the prescriptions should not have been excluded for lack of authentication because appellant had no chance to present evidence to meet that slight burden (requiring only a finding that the jury might find that the evidence is what its proponent claims). Appellant argues that the court’s failure to hold a hearing or rule on his motion to suppress his statements constituted reversible error.

Appellant filed a written motion five months before trial to suppress any evidence as the fruits of an illegal seizure, and renewed the motion during pre-trial proceedings. The trial court agreed to hold a hearing on the motion, but never held the hearing or ruled on the motion. Appellant says that he never waived his motion, and the court erred in never resolving it. The State argues that the prescriptions question is not preserved for appellate review because there is no evidence of the prescriptions in the trial court’s record.

Appellant did not proffer any copies of the prescription, nor any details such as the prescribing physician or amount of the prescriptions. The State maintains that the prescriptions were excluded properly as hearsay because they were introduced for the truth of the implied assertion that appellant and/or his wife had a medical condition that required the prescribed drugs. Even if the prescriptions could be admitted, says the State, appellant offered no evidence to meet even the slight standard required for authentication. Appellant did not make any effort on the record to argue that the prescriptions were admissible.

Because appellant’s witness list did not offer any expert witnesses who could have authenticated the prescriptions, the State argues, it is reasonable to assume appellant had no evidence to authenticate them. As to the trial court’s failure to hold a suppression hearing, the State argues that appellant failed to preserve his claim for our review by not objecting to or mentioning the omitted hearing to the trial court at any time after the trial commenced. Moreover and most significantly, during the trial, appellant did not object to the introduction of the statements he had sought to suppress when the State introduced that evidence at trial.

III

A. Before we address the trial court’s exclusion of the prescription evidence, we address the State’s preservation argument. Preservation is controlled by Maryland Rules, interpretations of which are classified as questions of law. Williams v. State, 435 Md. 474, 483 , 79 A.3d 931, 936-37 (2013). We review the trial court’s interpretations of the rules as conclusions of law de novo, that is, without deference “to determine if the trial court was legally correct in its rulings on these matters.” Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 , 861 A.2d 78, 80-81 (2004).

Rule 8-131 (a) restricts appellate review generally to subjects that “plainly appear[ ] by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.” Rule 4-323(c) further defines this standard for rulings excluding evidence 5 as follows: “[I]t is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order is made or sought, makes known to the court the action that the party desires the court to take or the objection to the action of the court.... If a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection at that time does not constitute a waiver of the objection.” Finally, Rule 5-103(a)(2) requires, in order to overturn a ruling excluding evidence, that “the party is prejudiced by the ruling, and ... the substance of the evidence [being excluded] was made known to the court by offer on the record or was apparent from the context within which the evidence was offered.” The trial court knew of appellant’s desire to introduce the written prescriptions. The State moved to exclude the prescriptions in limine and the trial court granted the State's motion immediately, without affording comment from appellant’s counsel. Without making an explicit objection, appellant made known to the trial court (as required by Rule 4-323(c)) his desire that the prescriptions be admitted in evidence.

Appellant raised his defense that he and his wife had valid prescriptions for methadone, alprazolam, and oxycodone in his motion to suppress, and the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence makes clear that the trial court was well aware that appellant desired to introduce the prescriptions. An objection or exception to the court’s ruling when the court granted the in limine motion was unnecessary—the court gave appellant no opportunity to object to the ruling at that time and counsel was not required to argue with or confront the court. The court ruled on the State’s motion without offering appellant’s counsel any opportunity to respond or to argue his position. In fact, the trial court did not let the State finish its argument before granting the motion and immediately moving on.

While appellant could have objected and asked to return to the topic, Rule 4-323(c) does not require such a remedial measure to preserve the issue for appeal. Reed v. State, 353 Md. 628, 639-40 , 728 A.2d 195, 201 (1999). Appellant made no explicit offer of proof on the record, but the substance of the prescription evidence is apparent from both the charges against appellant, as discussed infra, and appellant’s suppression motion. This apparent substance of the prescription evidence satisfies Rule 5-103(a)(2).

Additionally, the court’s ruling on the motion satisfies Rule 8-131(a)’s second option for preservation, a decision by the trial court. We hold that the issue is preserved for our review. B. Unlike other evidence, a trial court “has no discretion to admit hearsay in the absence of a provision providing for its admissibility.” Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1, 8 , 887 A.2d 602, 606 (2005). Hearsay is thus an issue of law, not fact.

Id. “Whether evidence is hearsay is reviewed de novo,” without deference to the trial court. Morales v. State, 219 Md. App. 1, 11 , 98 A.3d 1032, 1038 (2014). Maryland Rule 5-801(c) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” We hold that the trial court erred in excluding the prescriptions. They were not hearsay and were authenticated potentially by appellant.

Apparently, appellant did not plan to introduce the prescriptions to assert the truth of any matter stated in the prescriptions, just their existence. Sections 5-601 and 5-602 of the Criminal Law Article, which appellant was convicted of •violating, read, in pertinent part, as follows: “§ 5-601. Possessing or administering controlled dangerous substance. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person may not; (1) possess or administer to another a controlled dangerous substance,