DAVID LEANDER FORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, Oct. 26, 2018,
Character Evidence – Prosecutors may not anticipatorily introduce evidence of a victim’s peacefulness even where the defense introduces argument that the victim was the aggressor in opening statement

Overruling CoSA in part, though finding harmless error

This seems to ignore the underlying reason for allowing a trial judge to control the order of evidence. When it’s obvious that the defense is going to raise the issue and that the State is going to be able to counter it, why force the State to recall a witness when they’re already on the stand? Moreover, failure to follow this strict order will ALWAYS be harmless error unless the defense changes course from its opening statement, and thus the COA opinion makes things needlessly difficult for no reason.

LEO-relevant Holding: Consciousness of Guilt – Testimony that the defendant tried to hide at his ex-girlfriend’s house and cursed her out when she kicked him out in the morning was admissible as consciousness of guilt.

Facts:
In 2015, Ford was sitting on a park bench in Anne Arundel County with Mohamed Eltahir when the two began fighting. Ford drew a knife and stabbed Eltahir, killing him.
Ford then went to his former girlfriend’s house to avoid the police. She let him stay the night, but kicked him out in the morning. He cursed her and left, slamming the front door. As he left, he was arrested by police.
Detective Ballard stayed with Ford after the arrest. As detectives approached the ex-girlfriend’s house, Ford stated that detectives were “not going to find anything” because he “hid the knife in the county.”
Ford waived his Miranda rights and made more incriminating statements as well as telling detectives where he hid the knife. Ford also stated that he was “schizophrenic with bipolar, seizures, and everything” and that he had not taken his medication.
Ford was charged with the murder.
At trial, the defense attorney argued in his opening statement that the victim was the aggressor. The attorney argued that the victim was “drinking that night,” “and Ford is not the person who initiates any physical contact.” He argued that “Ford makes a choice to defend himself. Ford is forced to react. The only goal that Ford had that day was to defend himself, and to make sure that he didn’t get hurt.”
The prosecution argued that the defense attorney raised the issue that the victim was the first aggressor and that, under the Maryland Rule on victim character in a homicide case, the State was allowed to present evidence that the victim had a reputation for being peaceful. The judge allowed this over the defendant’s objection.
The judge also allowed Ford’s ex-girlfriend to testify about how Ford acted when she kicked him out that morning, finding that his anger at not being allowed to hide there showed consciousness of guilt.
At the end of the trial, Ford was convicted of second-degree murder.
Ford appealed, arguing that the victim’s character evidence should not have been admitted until after Ford presented evidence that the victim started the fight. He also argued that the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

Held: The Court of Appeals held that, while evidence of the victim’s peacefulness should not have been presented until after the defense introduced actual evidence (not just argument) that the victim started the fight, it did not affect the verdict.

Character evidence – In general, evidence of a defendant’s character cannot be used to show that they should be convicted because they’re a bad person

Consciousness of Guilt – Consciousness of guilt evidence is generally admissible and may include “flight after a crime, escape from confinement, use of a false name, and destruction or concealment of evidence.”

Consciousness of Guilt – Necessary Inferences – In order to be admissible, there must be a logical connection between the evidence presented and how it shows that the defendant committed the crime. It should be reasonable to infer (1) from the defendant’s conduct, a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence; (2) from a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence, consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt, consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses; and (4) from consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses, actual guilt.

From the Case: “From evidence of Ford’s reaction to being told that he could not stay at Brown’s home, the jury could reasonably have drawn the following inferences: (1) from Ford’s reaction to a desire to hide from law enforcement and elude capture; (2) from hiding to consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt to consciousness concerning the crime charged, i.e., murder of Eltahir; and (4) from consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged.”

From the Case: “Like flight after a crime, escape from confinement, and the like, Ford’s postcrime conduct of hiding in his ex-girlfriend’s home and becoming upset that he was made to leave was circumstantial evidence that was relevant “as a circumstance tending to show a consciousness of guilt.”

Evidence – Just because there is an alternative explanation does not make consciousness-of-guilt evidence inadmissible; it merely leaves it to the fact-finder to decide whether or not the evidence presented shows guilt

From the Case: “Ford could have offered, but did not offer, evidence of an innocent explanation for his reaction to being told by Brown to leave, and, even if he had, then it would have been up to the jury to weigh the effect of Ford’s reaction.”

Victim Character – In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Victim Character – The Maryland Rule on victim character in a homicide case “definitively requires evidence that the victim was the first aggressor—not merely a statement indicating that some evidence might possibly be introduced—to trigger the State’s ability to rebut with evidence of the victim’s trait of peacefulness.”

From the Case: “The trial court erred in concluding that defense counsel had ‘opened the door’ for the State to present evidence of the victim’s trait of peacefulness… and in permitting the State, over objection, to elicit testimony in its case-in-chief from State’s witnesses that the victim was a ‘quiet, nice person, nice to everybody,’ and ‘a cool person, he was never, you know nasty or hostile, or anything.’ Nevertheless, we hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”