DARRELL BELLARD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Nazarian, August 31, 2016,
Murder – Sentencing – Statutory remnants of the repeal of the death penalty did not create a new sentencing procedure that allowed for election of sentencing by jury in 1st Degree Murder trials

affirmed by CoA

Case Summary: After his second Maryland drug-deal ended in a year ended with his drugs stolen, a Texas drug-dealer and his co-defendant killed an associate (whom he blamed), her neighbor, and her neighbor’s two children. Afterwards, the two went to clean up and he threw his clothes in a dumpster. The defendant returned to the scene (shoeless) as the first responding officer was there, stating he was there to “check on his friends.”
Police asked him to wait and he stood by at the scene for about half an hour unrestrained and unattended. Police wouldn’t let him return to his car, but an officer got his cigarettes for him from inside the vehicle.
The defendant went voluntarily to CID. He was patted down but then transported in the front seat unrestrained, and during the interview asked to keep the interview-room door open (which was done for him).
Investigation revealed that the defendant was a Texas drug dealer, and the defendant admitted that he brought marijuana and a gun from Texas. At this point he was Mirandized, but agreed to speak with officers.
He gave consent to search his vehicle and to give a DNA sample.
He was told that his co-defendant was pointing the finger at him “and he needed to think about that,” and that “he needed to get his statement out there first.”
He was also told that the clothes he threw away could help prove his innocence, so he took police to the dumpster where he said they were… then confessed to the murder.
Prior to trial, Defendant tried to subpoena officer IAD files as well as any e-mails related to the investigation, but the trial court quashed the subpoena (didn’t allow it to go forward).
Defendant was convicted of 4 counts of 1st degree murder.
Note: Seizure – A person is “seized” by the police when a reasonable (innocent) person wouldn’t feel free to leave.
Note: Seizure – Whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave an encounter with a police officer depends on a variety of factors such as:
• the time and place of the encounter
• the number of officers present and whether they were uniformed
• whether the police removed the person to a different location or isolated him or her from others
• whether the person was informed that he or she was free to leave
• whether the police indicated that the person was suspected of a crime
• whether the police retained the person’s documents
• and whether the police exhibited threatening behavior or made physical contact that would suggest to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to leave.
Note: Confession – Voluntariness – A confession must be voluntary in order to be admissible. “Voluntary” means “freely and voluntarily made” with awareness of what you are saying.
Note: Confession – Voluntariness- Factors in assessing voluntariness include:
• where the interrogation was conducted
• its length
• who was present
• how it was conducted
• its content
• whether the defendant was given Miranda warnings
• the mental and physical condition of the defendant
• when the defendant was taken before a court commissioner following arrest
• and whether the defendant was physically mistreated, or physically intimated or psychologically pressured.
Note: A confession is considered “involuntary” if it is the result of an improper promise, improper threat, force, or certain types of deception.
Note: “Improper promises” make a confession involuntary where police (or an agent) “promises or implies to a suspect that he or she will be given special consideration from a prosecuting authority or some other form of assistance in exchange for the suspect’s confession, and (2) the suspect makes a confession in apparent reliance on the police officer’s statement.”
Note: However, this does not cover situations where the suspect is merely encouraged to explain the situation from their perspective (so long as no promises are made/suggested).
Holding: Telling the suspect that a co-defendant was telling on him and he “needed to get his statement out there first” did not make the confession involuntary since it didn’t promise or suggest a benefit or special treatment.
Holding: Telling the suspect that finding the clothing he wore earlier might help prove his innocence did not make the confession involuntary since it didn’t promise or suggest a benefit or special treatment.
Note: Defense subpoena of IAD files and other confidential documents:
• First, a Defendant must demonstrate to the court that there is a “need to inspect” – a “reasonable possibility that review of the records would result in discovery of usable evidence.” This is considered based on: nature of charges, issue before the court, relationship between the charges and the information sought considering the likelihood that relevant information will be obtained.
• If the Defendant demonstrates a “need to inspect,” the court may either conduct an in-camera review (view the documents privately to determine whether they should be turned over), may review them along with counsel, or may permit review by counsel alone subject to whatever restrictions the court thinks proper.
Other Crimes Evidence – Evidence that defendant was ripped off by victim during last drug deal trip to Maryland was admissible because it provided motive for the murder when it happened a second time, it was proven by admission by the suspect, and it was more probative than prejudicial.

Discovery – Expert Witness – No abuse of discretion in allowing expert to testify where defense had subject of opinion for 3 years and testimony was in keeping with that opinion. No prejudice shown.

Conspiracy – Where defendant was charged with 4 counts of conspiracy for quadruple murder, but State demonstrated and argued only one overarching conspiracy, single conviction was appropriate.

Other Crimes Evidence – “Other Crimes” evidence may be admissible where:
First, the court determines whether the evidence falls into one of the recognized exceptions, such as motive, opportunity, intent, or preparation. This is not a matter of discretion, and we review that categorization de novo.
Second,if the evidence falls into a category of exceptions, the court decides by clear and convincing evidence whether the defendant was involved in the prior crime or bad act, and we review that finding for sufficiency of the evidence.
Third, the court balances the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, a determination we review for abuse of discretion.

Other Crimes – Evidence that defendant was ripped off by victim during last drug deal trip to Maryland provided motive for murder when it happened again, was proven by admission, and was more probative than prejudicial.