CARLOS NICHOLSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Berger, Nov. 5, 2018,
Self Defense – Self-defense is not a defense to felony-murder
Facts:
In 2016, Baltimore County police responded to a shooting in Owings Mills and found two males shot, one of them dead. Both had handguns.
Nicholson was arrested shortly thereafter.
Nicholson waived Miranda and told detectives that he met up with the two men to sell them weed. He didn’t have enough, so he brought along another marijuana supplier in exchange for a cut of the profits. Nicholson told detectives that when they met up with the two victims, the victims tried to rob him.
Initially, Nicholson told detectives that he didn’t shoot anyone and hid under the car until it was over. However, when told that one of the suspects was shot with his own gun (which was false), Nicholson said that “maybe I did turn the gun on him while we was tussling.” Medical examination revealed that one of the victims was shot twice in the back.
Nicholson said that neither he nor his supplier brought a gun to the drug deal, but ballistics revealed that neither gun recovered from the scene shot the two victims.
Although witness and forensics evidence contradicted Nicholson’s claim, he requested that the jury be instructed on self-defense. The trial judge denied this, finding that self-defense was not generated.
Nicholson was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and second-degree felony murder.
Nicholson appealed, arguing that he should have received a self-defense instruction and that PWID does not qualify for second-degree felony-murder.
Held:
Self-Defense (Complete/Perfect) – Perfect self-defense requires:
(1) The suspect reasonably believed he was in imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm;
(2) The suspect in fact believed himself in this danger;
(3) The suspect claiming self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive (no more force than the exigency demanded)
Self-Defense (Incomplete/Imperfect) – Imperfect self-defense requires only that the suspect honestly believed his actions were necessary (even if a reasonable person would not have so believed)
Self-Defense – A self-defense instruction is generated as long as there is any evidence that, if believed, would support the claim (even if overwhelmed by contrary evidence)
Self-Defense – Defendants statement to police that “maybe” he shot the victim while struggling over a gun was enough evidence to generate a self-defense jury instruction
Self-Defense – Self-defense is not a defense to felony-murder
Felony-Murder (1st Degree Murder)- First-degree felony-murder involves a killing during certain felonies (or attempts) such as robbery or sex-offense.
Felony-Murder (Second Degree – Second-degree felony-murder involves a killing during a felony where death was a foreseeable possibility
Felony-Murder – Whether the underlying felony is inherently dangerous “is determined by the nature of the crime or by the manner in which it was perpetrated in a given set of circumstances.”
From the Case: the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Nicholson arrived at the rendezvous armed and prepared to use violence as necessary to protect himself and his product. Furthermore, the dollar value of the marijuana being sold — $3,200 — suggested that the stakes were high and potentially dangerous. It was Nicholson’s decision to engage in an inherently dangerous felony that resulted in the killing of Johnson; to the extent that Nicholson was confronted with a dangerous situation, he was responsible for creating that situation.
Possession – To possess something is “to exercise actual or constructive dominion or control” over it.
Constructive/Joint Possession Factors – Factors relevant to constructive or joint possession include:
1) Defendant’s proximity to the item
2) Whether the item was in plain view and/or accessible to the defendant
3) Whether there was indicia of mutual use and enjoyment
4) whether the defendant had an ownership or possessory interest in the location (such as the driver of a car controlling what’s in the trunk)
5) Nature of the area where the item was found (example: a car passenger will commonly be in a common enterprise with the driver while a bar patron will not generally be engaged in common enterprise with a bartender)
6) Circumstances indicating a common criminal enterprise (items necessary for crime split amongst co-conspirators, etc)
Confession – A defendant cannot be convicted based solely on an uncorroborated confession (some evidence must be admitted to show that the crime was actually committed and he completed it)