BROOKS S. PERRY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Leahy, Sept. 28, 2016,
Reckless Endangerment – Sufficient evidence to convict where, during a foot chase at night, officers saw a muzzle flash and heard a gunshot coming from the suspect’s direction. Casing later found at location.
Facts:
Night time DUI leads to car/foot chase, suspect shooting at officer. After car stop and observing signs of intoxication, officer asked Perry to exit for SFST. Perry asked whether the officer was going to search the vehicle. When told that the vehicle wasn’t going to be searched, Perry consented to the SFST. During the SFST, Perry adjusted “something in his, in the front of his pants, belt, waist area.”
Perry asked the officer whether he was going to search him and asked whether the officer had called for backup.
When the officer confirmed that Perry was going to be searched and directed him to place his hands on the trunk, Perry began fidgeting and continued to turn toward the officer. The officer then directed Perry to sit in his car until backup arrived, at which point Perry drove off.
100+ mph car chase ensued leading to a foot chase through a golf course. Other officers joined in. During the chase, the officer heard a “heard a gunshot and [] observed a muzzle flash.” The initiating officer dropped to the ground, but a fellow officer returned fire. The suspect escaped, but was apprehended 12 hours later. 3 .40-caliber casings (departmental) and 1 .45-caliber casing (non-departmental) were recovered from the scene.
Reckless endangerment – “Reckless endangerment is designed to punish potentially harmful conduct even under those fortuitous [lucky] circumstances where no harm results.” The point of the crime is to “deter crime before injury or death occurs.”
Reckless endangerment – Shooting a gun is not enough. It must create a risk to those in the “arc of danger.” However, that “arc of danger” is greater than just the actual bullet trajectory. Someone carelessly handling a weapon creates a greater “arc of danger” than a trained professional with a weapon pointed at a fixed target.
In this case, Perry “continued to flee frantically on foot with a loaded gun on his person. Either he was so drunk or the terrain was so rough that he fell three times.”
The Court contrasts Albrecht v. State in which a police officer pointed a shotgun at an individual to effect a stop related to a recent stabbing. The officer testified that he recognized the first suspect was not a threat but accidentally discharged the shotgun when he went to train it on a second suspect. The Court held that the reckless act was not pointing the shotgun at the first suspect (who was being stopped related to a violent crime), but rather that the reckless act was the officer putting his finger on the trigger instead of at touch point. By moving his finger to the trigger, the Court held that the officer (who had modified the shotgun on his own resulting in a heavier sling) created a “substantial risk” of accidental discharge.
Reckless Endangerment – It is not necessary to actually fire a weapon to create a substantial risk of death or serious injury, however.