JOHN W. GREEN, III v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Graeff, Dec. 1, 2016,
Discovery – Pre-Trial Identification – 4-263 requires that the State disclose pretrial “identification of the defendant by a State’s witness”, not identification of a co-defendant.
Defendant’s trial strategy put himself at the scene along with the co-defendant as the only two people other than the victim. The issue was which one shot. At trial, the State had a witness identify the co-defendant for the first time and testify that this was not the person that shot the victim. The defendant objected, noting that by process of elimination the witness had “identified him.”
In answer to the Defendant’s claim of identification by process of elimination, the Court answered: “The State’s pretrial discovery obligations cannot be dependent on the defense trial strategy, which often will be unknown prior to trial.”
Contrast with Williams v. State where the State assured defense that a State Trooper conducting surveillance could not see Williams but at trial the Trooper positively identified Williams as having been in the target apartment just prior to a narcotics raid. Because that was an identification of the defendant, it constituted a discovery violation where the defense was misled.
Closing Argument – Where the Prosecutor played an audio recording of jail calls to the jury but did not admit the CD containing the calls into evidence, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow him to replay portions during his closing argument.
Facts:
The defendant admitted that he and Copeland drove to the victim’s house to confront him about theft of drugs and money belonging to Copeland. During the confrontation, the victim was shot to death. The defense claimed that Copeland was the shooter, while the State alleged that the Defendant was the shooter. An eyewitness told detectives that she saw a “short, stout person shooting into” the victim’s truck while a “tall and thin” person was standing nearby. Copeland was brought in from jail and the eyewitness testified that he was the “tall and thin” person. She previously claimed that she couldn’t identify him, but later recognized him when she saw a picture of him in the local newspaper. That left the Defendant as the shooter. He was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and other charges.
The Defendant claimed that the State violated its discovery obligations by not disclosing that the witness could identify Copeland. The witness initially told police that she couldn’t identify anyone, but when detectives were preparing for trial she told them that she recognized Copeland’s picture in the paper. The detectives told the State, but the State did not disclose this to the defense until trial.
The Court of Special Appeals noted that the State’s discovery obligation for positive identification extends to identification of the Defendant, not the co-defendant.
Discovery – In a Circuit Court case, Maryland Rule 4-263 requires the State to disclose certain facts to the Defense even if the Defense doesn’t ask for them. These include:
– Defendant/Co-Defendant Statements – All relevant written and all oral statements of the defendant and of any co-defendant (as well as reports/etc on how the statements were obtained);
– Criminal History – Prior criminal convictions, pending charges, and probationary status of the defendant and of any co-defendant;
– Witness Information- State’s Witness names, addresses and phone numbers (unless protected), and written statements given;
– “Prior Conduct” Evidence – any “prior conduct” evidence the State intends to use;
– Exculpatory Material – All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to exculpate the defendant or negate or mitigate the defendant’s guilt or punishment as to the offense charged
– Impeachment Information – All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to impeach a State’s witness
– Search & Seizure – All relevant material or information regarding specific searches and seizures, eavesdropping, and electronic surveillance including wiretaps
– Pre-Trial ID – pretrial identification of the defendant by a State’s witness;
– Expert Witness- Reports or Statements of each expert consulted by the State;
– Evidence for Use at Trial
– Property of the Defendant