Brandon Payton v. State

BRANDON PAYTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Beachley, Feb. 1, 2018,
Neutral Judge – A trial judge on the verge of granting a motion for judgment of acquittal improperly reopened the State’s case on his own in order to allow the State to provide further evidence.

Affirmed by COA

Facts:
At approximately 6:00 p.m. on June 12, 2015, in West Baltimore, several eyewitnesses watched a man dressed in brightly-colored women’s clothing and a floppy hat chase down and shoot another man. The victim, identified as Steven Bass, died from multiple gunshot wounds.
The shooter fled into an alley by a nearby liquor store, whose security footage corroborated testimony about an individual wearing a floppy hat and floral blouse in the vicinity of the shooting. Police officers searched the scene and alley, but were unable to recover any bullets, shell casings, or articles of clothing belonging to the shooter. However, they were later able to lift a palm print from the car of a witness who believed the shooter may have touched the hood of his vehicle while passing by.
A search for the print on an automated database returned a “hit,” and an arrest warrant for appellant was eventually issued on July 15, 2015.
At trial, testimony was given linking the palm print to Payton’s SID number. Testimony was also given linking a print card taken from Payton to Payton’s SID number. No testimony was given directly linking the prints taken from Payton to the prints found at the scene. There was also no clear explanation offered by the State regarding what a SID number is and how it relates to an individual’s fingerprint.
The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to link Payton to the crime because there was no direct evidence that the prints recovered from the scene belonged to Payton.
The trial judge
was going to grant the acquittal, but instead the judge on his own decided that the State would reopen its case and present further evidence.
The State then presented further evidence linking the prints from the scene to Payton.
Payton was subsequently found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Payton was sentenced to life for first-degree murder and a consecutive twenty-year sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
Payton appealed, arguing that the judge abandoned his role as impartial when he reopened the State’s case without request by the State. Payton also challenged the evidence used against him.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed that the judge was wrong to reopen the State’s case without request by the State. Sent back for a new trial.

Motion to Re-Open Case – Factors to be considered related to a trial court’s decision to change the order of proof in a case include: whether good cause is shown; whether the new evidence is significant; whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis, prejudicing the party against whom it is offered; whether the evidence is controversial in nature; and, whether the reopening is at the request of the jury or a party.

Fair Trial – A criminal defendant has the right to a fair trial, and it is well-settled in Maryland that an impartial and disinterested judge is fundamental to this right

From the Case: Under the facts of this case, especially where the trial court was on the verge of granting the defendant an acquittal, the court abused its discretion by abandoning its position of impartiality and on its own reopening the State’s case to correct a perceived problem with the case.

Non-expert Opinion testimony – If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

Narration of video – “As a general rule, caution should be exercised by the trial court when determining whether to permit a police officer to narrate a video when the officer was not present during the events depicted therein.”

Leave a Reply