SEAN PRINCE HALLOWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, J Eyler, Feb. 1, 2018,
Flight – Simply leaving a location is not “flight.” To be considered “flight,” facts need to suggest that the departure was “done with a consciousness of guilt” and in an “effort to avoid apprehension.”

“One must remember, however, that a consideration of plain error is like a trip to Angkor Wat or Easter Island. It is not a casual stroll down the block to the drugstore or the 7-11.” Cute Moylan quote.

Facts:
In 2013, Hallowell, Bishop, Thompson, and friends were consuming drugs and alcohol at a house party. Bishop told Thompson to go get a back of cocaine from the car. When Thompson returned, there were only “crumbs” in the bag. Bishop asked Hallowell about the cocaine and he told Bishop that he had given Thompson “a full bag” and that he would “be back.” Hallowell then left the party.
Later, Thompson and Bishop then went to Hallowell’s house. Hallowell pulled Thompson out of his car. Thompson turned to Bishop and asked Bishop if he had said anything to Hallowell about the cocaine. Hallowell then pulled out a gun and shot Thompson in the head.
Hallowell then drove Thompson to a fire station and left him there after telling fire fighters that “somebody” needed their help. Hallowell then quickly left the area and never returned.
Thompson died shortly thereafter, but Hallowell had accidentally dropped his wallet on the ground when he went to alert the firefighters.
Hallowell was charged with Thompson’s murder and related charges.
At trial, the jury was instructed that to convict Thompson of 2nd-degree murder, it needed to find that the killing occurred during a 1st-degree assault against Thompson.
The jury was also instructed that to convict Thompson of use of a handgun in a crime of violence, it needed to find that the handgun was used in the commission of the 2nd-degree murder.
Hallowell was subsequently convicted of 2nd-degree murder and handgun in a crime of violence.
Hallowell then appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeals had previously held that 1st-degree assault of a victim couldn’t also justify a felony-murder charge related to the death of that victim.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed that 1st-degree assault against a victim cannot be the basis for a felony-murder charge if that same victim dies.

1st-degree assault – Use of a firearm to commit an assault is one way to commit the crime of assault in the first degree

1st-degree assault – The other way to commit assault in the first degree is to assault with the intent to cause serious physical injury

Felony Murder – A felony-murder is 1st-degree Murder if it is committed “in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate”:
– 1st-degree arson
– Burning a structure that “contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco”
– Felony burglary
– Carjacking
– Escape from a correctional facility
– Kidnapping
– Mayhem
– Rape
– Robbery
– Sodomy
– Possession, manufacture, or use of a destructive device

Felony-Murder – A felony-murder is 2nd-degree Murder if it is committed in order to perpetrate a dangerous felony, whether or not that felony is on the 1st-degree list.

Felony-Murder – 1st-degree assault cannot be used as the basis for a felony-murder conviction if the assault victim and the murder victim were the same person

From the Case: Because Thompson was the victim of the 1st-degree assault and the felony-murder charge, a conviction for felony-murder would have been improper. The jury did not specify whether they found Hallowell guilty of specific-intent murder or felony-murder, so the conviction was reversed.

Handgun Crime of Violence – A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or any felony

Firearm in a Crime of Violence – Where a murder conviction was reversed, a conviction for use of a firearm in a crime of violence may also reversed where the murder was the crime of violence and thus “tainted” the firearm/crime-of-violence conviction.

From the Case: Because the only “crime of violence” was the murder that was reversed, the Court also sent back the firearm in a crime of violence charge.

Flight – Flight can be considered evidence of guilt if the following inferences may reasonably be drawn from the facts:
(1) That the defendant took flight
(2) That the flight suggests a consciousness of guilt
(3) That the consciousness of guilt is related to the crime charged or a closely related crime
(4) That the consciousness of guilt of the crime charged suggests actual guilt of the crime charged or a closely related crime.

Flight – Simply leaving a location is not “flight.” To be considered “flight,” facts need to suggest that the departure was “done with a consciousness of guilt” and in an “effort to avoid apprehension.”

From the Case: Hallowell could be considered to have “fled” the scene because he quickly left once alerting the firefighters, he “never identified himself to the firefighters, he did not lead them to the vehicle where his injured companion lay, and he did not remain at the scene to find out whether his companion would survive his injuries.”