ADOU KOUADIO v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Wilner, Feb. 15, 2018,
Jury Trial – Murder – A jury does not need to agree on which form of malice the defendant had as long as they are unanimous that he acted with malice

There’s a fun little analysis of Schad after Richardson (when does a jury need to agree on an underlying form/fact?), but in light of the primary audience I’ve let that go

Facts:
Kouadio’s girlfriend became pregnant and, despite Kouadio’s request for her to have an abortion, she gave birth to their child in December of 2013. After a series of incidents resulting in injury to the baby while in Kouadio’s care, he woke his girlfriend’s mother at 2 a.m. one morning in February and she saw that the seven-week old baby was lifeless with blood coming out of his nose. The baby was also not dressed the way that she had put him to bed. Kouadio was the only other person with the child at the time of its injury. The baby died at the hospital.
Kouadio was interrogated by police and stated that he heard the baby fussing and tried to feed him, then set him down. He claimed that he came back 20 minutes later to check on the baby and saw blood coming from the baby’s nose. Kouadio was eventually charged with the infant’s murder.
At trial, the State presented evidence from several doctors that the injuries to the infant’s brain and eyes were recent, severe, and traumatic, and arose from violent and repeated shaking or direct impact of the head against a hard or soft surface. One doctor stated that, when he sees “severe trauma like this,” he thinks of” a high-speed motor vehicle crash” and not “an ordinary household accident.” Another described the cause as “violent, repetitive shaking of, of a baby” and “[t]his is not the kind of gentle tussling or bouncing of a baby.”
Kouadio was convicted of murder and 1st-degree child abuse.
Kouadio appealed, arguing that there was not enough evidence to convict him, that the judge made a mistake with the jury instructions, and that certain evidence should have been allowed at trial.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial judge did not err and affirmed the conviction.

Murder – Murder is a common law crime in Maryland that has been defined as “the killing of one human being by another with the requisite malevolent state of mind and without justification, excuse, or mitigation.”

Malice – The “malevolent” states of mind that qualify for murder are:
– the specific intent to kill
– the intent to do “grievous” bodily harm (likely to cause death)
– extreme indifference to human life (depraved heart)
– OR the intent to commit a dangerous felony

Jury Trial – Murder – A jury does not need to agree on which form of malice the defendant had as long as they are unanimous that he had malice (at least one of the above types)

Child Abuse – Perpetrators – In Maryland, child abuse can only be committed by one of the following groups:
– Family Members
– Household Members
– Anyone with permanent or temporary care, custody, or responsibility to supervise a minor

Child Abuse – Physical – Abuse means “physical injury sustained by a minor as a result of cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of a malicious act under circumstances that indicate that the minor’s health or welfare is harmed or threatened by the treatment or act.”

Child Abuse – Degrees- First degree child abuse involves abuse that results in death or “severe physical injury”

Child Abuse – “Severe physical injury” includes brain injury or bleeding within the skull and physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

From the Case: When his grandmother put the baby to bed at 11:00 after feeding and bathing him, the child appeared to be fine. There was no blood in his nose; he wasn’t blue or nonresponsive; he was able to suck and swallow. The only contact that the child had prior to Kouadio waking the grandmother at 2:00 a.m. was with him. Kouadio alone had the opportunity to cause the damage during that three-hour period. “Deliberation and malicious, cruel, inhumane intent may be inferred from that circumstance and from the nature and severity of the injuries inflicted.”

Doctrine of Completeness- If all or part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction of any other part of the statement [or any other written or recorded statement] which in fairness ought to be considered along with it.

From the Case: Kouadio was not allowed to have his interview with police entered into evidence because the State did not introduce any of it into evidence. Rather, the prosecutor merely questioned Kouadio about why he failed to tell detectives the same story that he told the jury during his trial.