MICHAEL WILLIAM HALL, TYWAN JAMAD CUMMINGS, DAQUAWN LUBIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Nazarian, June 28, 2017,
Impeachment- Where a victim was a prohibited person and claimed to have shot one robber with another robber’s gun, the defendant should have been allowed to impeach the victim with his prior manslaughter conviction

The Court here drifts a bit between a straight 5-609 (you’re a proven liar) impeachment and a 5-616 (you have motive to lie in this case) impeachment, but in the end it just makes you wish the State had stipulated to the prohibited person part and moved on…

Facts:
Janise Ray and Raymond Clark testified at trial that they were the victims of an attempted armed robbery/home-invasion in PG County. At trial, Ray and Clark stated that a group of men armed with guns forced their way into their apartment. Clark testified that he grabbed a gun from one of the assailants and started firing. When one of the robbers was hit, they all fled.
A “substantial amount of drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the apartment as well as a box of ammunition and a gun.” Clark testified that the gun recovered was the one that he took from the robbers.
Clark, however, was a prohibited person having previously been convicted of manslaughter. It was the defense’s argument that this was a drug-deal gone bad and that it was Clark’s gun that was used (not a gun taken from someone else).
When the defense tried to ask about Clark’s motive to lie about where he got the gun, the Court sustained the State’s objection and would not allow the evidence in.
The defendants were convicted and appealed, arguing that they should have been allowed to ask questions related to the victims’ motive to lie. They also argued that there was not enough evidence to convict them.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed, holding that manslaughter is an impeachable crime and that whether or not Clark knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm was relevant to his motive to lie. Sent back for a new trial.

Impeachment- “Impeaching” a witness means that one side or the other is trying to make the witness look like they’re a liar.

Impeachment– There are a variety of ways to impeach a witness. The easiest/best way is proof that the witness is lying (there’s video evidence contradicting the story he told police on scene or in court). In other cases, a witness can be impeached by showing:
– the witness has made statements that are inconsistent with his present testimony;
– the facts aren’t what the witness claims;
– a witness is giving a false opinion or one “not worthy of belief”;
– the witness is biased, prejudiced, interested in the outcome of the proceeding, or has a motive to testify falsely;
– the witness does not have personal knowledge of what he’s saying happened
– the witness had difficulty perceiving, remembering, or communicating something
– the character of the witness for untruthfulness

Practice note: Because false or inconsistent prior statements can be the easiest to disprove, it’s helpful to lock a suspect in to a story as early as possible (before he has a chance to see the evidence you have on him and create a false story that fits the evidence). A proven lie can, in some cases, be just as good as a confession in court. For example: a suspect is arrested minutes after a commercial robbery and gives a taped statement that he wasn’t there. A video is recovered clearly showing him walking in to the store. If he got to wait until trial to make up his story, he might be able to come up with something that makes sense. However, because you have him on tape saying that he wasn’t there at all, the defense is going to have a harder time.

Impeachment- A witness can be impeached through proof that the witness has a history or character for deceptive actions. Most frequently this is done by impeaching them with a prior conviction. For example, someone convicted of perjury is generally not going to be very credible. Not all convictions show that someone’s a liar, however. A littering conviction doesn’t have anything to do with honesty, so littering can’t be used to impeach a witness.

Impeachment- “Infamous crimes,” such as manslaughter, are impeachable. So are felonies reflecting on honesty such as Embezzlement or CDS Distribution.

Impeachment- Another way of impeaching a witness is by showing that they have a motive to lie in this particular case.

Practice note: When dealing with a victim or witness whose credibility you doubt, be certain to investigate and document these issues. The questions that you have about a witness’ credibility are likely to be the same questions that the jury has. If a prohibited person claims that he grabbed the robber’s gun and used it on him, then why was there a box of ammunition recovered from the victim’s apartment? Both the investigator (on-scene) and the juror (down the road) are going to want to know the answer to that question.