DANIEL NICHOLAS SMITH v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Wright, April 28, 2017,
Threaten public official – Under the circumstances, saying, “I’m going to find you” while pointing and leaning close to the glass was a threat to do physical harm to a District Court Commissioner.
Facts
On August 13, 2015, Court Commissioner Caron met with Smith following his arrest. Caron testified that after she set money bail, Smith became furious.
Caron testified that Smith “exploded and started cursing, yelling profanities. He said, ‘Fuck you bitch.’” Caron testified that Smith also shouted, “I’m going to find you,” and “You better find another job.”
Caron further testified that Smith put his finger up, made eye contact with her, and said, “I’m going to find you” while thrusting his finger into the glass.
The guards then came to take him away. A Deputy testified that, as Smith started to leave the room, “he turned back around and spit towards the Commissioner.”
Smith was tried before a jury and convicted of threatening a State official.
He appealed, claiming that the State didn’t present enough evidence that he intended to threaten the court commissioner with physical harm.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court disagreed. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the jury to find that Smith was threatening to harm the Court Commissioner.
Threat Against State or Local Official – CR 3-708 requires proof that a person:
• knowingly and willingly
• made a threat (oral or written)
• to kill, kidnap, or cause physical injury
• to a State official or local elected official (listed below)
Officials covered under CR 3-708 include:
• Elected local officials (city, county, etc)
• Assistant State’s Attorneys, Deputy State’s Attorneys, and Assistant Public Defenders
• State officials such as:
o The Governor and other constitutional officers
o Members of the General Assembly;
o a judge or judicial appointee (including court commissioners)
o a State’s Attorney;
o a clerk of the circuit court;
o a register of wills; or
o a sheriff
Bad Acts- Evidence- In general, evidence that the defendant committed another crime or wrongful act is not admissible to prove his character.
Bad Acts- Evidence- However, evidence of other bad acts might be admitted at trial to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Bad Acts- Evidence- Bad acts evidence must be established by clear and convincing evidence. It must also be balanced against the likelihood that it will unfairly prejudice the defendant.
From the Case: Testimony that Smith spat at the Court Commissioner after being removed from the room was allowed, because it showed Smith’s state of mind.