Beshore v. State

1

BRANDON BESHORE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 903-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

September 20, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 121194004

Zic Kehoe, S., Getty, Joseph M. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

KEHOE J.

A jury in Baltimore City convicted the Appellant, Brandon Beshore, of murder in the second degree and carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent or purpose of injuring an individual in an unlawful manner. The court sentenced Mr. Beshore to three years for carrying of a dangerous weapon and a consecutive thirty-year sentence for second degree murder. Mr. Beshore argues that the prosecution improperly used its peremptory strikes to create a racially biased jury and that the sentence for carrying a dangerous weapon should merge with the murder conviction under the rule of lenity. For reasons that we will outline, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I. Factual background

We will set forth such facts as are necessary to address the issues raised by this Appeal.

A. The Incident

In the early morning of June 21, 2021, Mr. Beshore, who had been up all night, feeling ill from withdrawal, decided to take a bus into Baltimore City so that he could purchase some heroin. A recent acquaintance told Mr. Beshore that he could purchase good heroin for a low price in the area surrounding the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and North Avenue. After he arrived in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue and North Avenue, he purchased four capsules of heroin on Baker Street near a playground. After he purchased the heroin, he boarded a bus to return home. During this bus ride, he sniffed a sufficient quantity of the heroin that he had purchased to become high.

Having missed his stop, he got off the bus near North Avenue and Belair Road, retrieved his mountain bike from the rack on the front of the bus and began to ride it. He asked a stranger, Daurell Hudson^[1] ("Mr. Hudson"), for directions. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Beshore if he liked to get high. They agreed to go to an area where Mr. Hudson could sell Mr. Beshore heroin.

They went into an alley near Pennsylvania Avenue and North Street. Mr. Beshore placed his mountain bike against a wall and reached for his wallet. Mr. Hudson put Mr. Beshore in a head lock by wrapping his arms around Mr. Beshore's neck. Mr. Beshore kept pulling forward to break the head lock when he discerned that Mr. Hudson was reaching for something. Mr. Beshore felt a sharp pain in his leg and fell forward with his hands on the ground. As they struggled, a knife fell to the ground. Both Mr. Beshore and Mr. Hudson tried to grab the knife. Mr. Beshore believed that Mr. Hudson was stabbed as they were struggling. Mr. Beshore saw Mr. Hudson fall. At the time that Mr. Hudson fell, Mr. Beshore had the knife.

At approximately 8:00 a.m., two witnesses, Andre Jones and Korey Farrar were riding in Mr. Jones' vehicle on their way home from work. They both noticed two men fighting in an alley. Mr. Jones noticed that Mr. Hudson, a Black man, had Mr. Beshore, a Caucasian man, in a choke hold and was attempting to go through his pockets. Mr. Farrar saw that Mr. Beshore got the knife from Mr. Hudson. They both observed Mr. Beshore chasing Mr. Hudson out of the alley. They both could see Mr. Beshore poking Mr. Hudson with the knife as he fled out of the alley. Mr. Jones and Mr. Farrar got out of the vehicle to see what was happening. By the time that they got to the scene Mr. Hudson was on the ground, and there was blood everywhere.

After Mr. Hudson fell to the ground, Mr. Beshore noticed several people crowding around him. He was unfamiliar with the area and unsure as to whether the people who had come there would harm him. He put the knife in his pocket. He gathered his belongings, which had been scattered on the ground, and put them in a bag.

Mr. Beshore asked Mr. Jones and Mr. Farrar if they had seen that the Black man had been trying to rob him. Mr. Jones told Mr. Beshore that he saw that the Black man had been trying to rob him. Mr. Jones also perspicaciously told Mr. Beshore that, at the moment he started to chase the Black man out of the alley, he would be charged with murder. Mr. Beshore appeared to be stunned by Mr. Jones' assessment and got onto his bicycle in an attempt to leave the scene. Mr. Beshore was having trouble peddling, lost control of his bicycle and fell off. Mr. Beshore testified that he was scared for his life and acted entirely in self-defense.

At approximately 8:00 a.m., Audwyn John, an off-duty police officer, was finishing his shift as a security guard for Baltimore Gas & Electric ("BG&E").^[2] He had been providing services for BG&E workers at the corner of Belair Road and Sinclair Lane. He notified dispatch of an assault and proceeded to where a crowd had assembled. When he arrived, people pointed to a white male on a bicycle as the individual who had committed the assault. Officer John, who was not in uniform, identified himself as a police officer and attempted to detain this individual, whom he identified as Mr. Beshore. Mr. Beshore resisted Officer John's attempt to detain him. Officer John called for his partner to help place Mr. Beshore in custody. He stated that Mr. Beshore commented that he had been robbed and was defending himself. He held Mr. Beshore until the investigative team arrived.

Officer Trina Slaughter came to the scene to find that Officer John had detained a Mr. Beshore. She placed Mr. Beshore in handcuffs and searched him for weapons. The purpose of this search was to ensure that he was safe to transport. She found a folding knife with a gold handle in his pocket. There was blood on the knife.

Mr. Beshore told Detective Seong Koo of the Baltimore Police Department that his name was Dustin Hart. After a search of the MVA database, Detective Koo was able to Dustin Hart was the name of someone else because the picture associated with Dustin Hart did not match Mr. Beshore.

Mr. Beshore was charged with first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, openly carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to injure and making a false statement when under arrest. A jury trial on these charges began on April 3, 2023.

B. Voir Dire

During voir dire, Mr. Beshore's counsel raised the following Batson challenge:

THE CLERK: Is juror 167 acceptable to the State?

MS. GALLO [the State's Attorney]: The State would thank and excuse juror number 167.

THE CLERK: Juror 167, you may have a seat in the gallery. Thank you.

MS. FINEGAR [Defense Counsel]: May we approach, please?

THE COURT: You may.

(Whereupon counsel and the Defendant approached the bench and the following ensued:)

MS. FINEGAR: Your Honor, at this juncture, I'm going to make a Batson challenge for the State. I believe that every person that they have struck has been the same, extensively [sic] the same race as my client. You know, we don't know how people identify. The first person didn't answer a question at all.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. FINEGAR: There's no reason to point to them. So I'm just making a Batson challenge at this point.

THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard?

MS. GALLO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. GALLO: As in regards to juror number eight[,] which is the first juror that I did strike, that individual did answer several questions, He or she indicated that she believes in prison reform intend to help reintroduce to society [sic]. She also indicated that family members have been convicted of crimes. And in that regard to juror number 76, which - -

THE COURT: Sixty-two was the next one. At least I have sixty-two.

MS. GALLO: I had regarding 62, um - - juror number 62 audibly and visibly made a reaction potentially. It was elicited from a response from the jury panel when he was selected. Additionally, when he was struck, he also, again - -

THE COURT: He did the same thing.

MS. GALLO: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Seventy-six.

MS. GALLO: As it pertains to 76, this individual indicated that she worked in the legal system at a law firm and her brother was convicted of a felony in North Carolina. She also indicated that she was not a fan of blood and graphic videos may affect her.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. GALLO: And pertaining to 167, I would submit because that juror did not answer any questions.

THE COURT: Fair Enough. All right. Thank you. The motion is denied.

After twelve jurors had been seated, the court made inquired of counsel:

THE COURT: Is the panel acceptable to defense?

MS. FINEGAR: Acceptable.

THE COURT: Is the panel acceptable to the State?

MS. GALLO: Acceptable.

Additional facts may be discussed as needed.

II. Questions presented

Mr. Beshore noted a timely appeal of his conviction to this court and presents the following issues on appeal, which we have rephrased:^[3]

1. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Batson challenge?

2. Did the trial court err by not merging the Appellant's conviction for openly carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to injure with the conviction for murder?

III. Discussion

A. Appellant's Batson challenge

1. The Batson challenge

Mr Beshore contends that the circuit court erred in denying his Batson challenge because the State's peremptory strike on juror 167 was based on race and therefore constitutionally impermissible. Specifically, he argues that the State's justification for the strike, that juror 167 had not answered any questions during voir dire, was pretextual. The State contends that Mr. Beshore waived his Batson challenge by failing to object to the jury as empaneled. The State further posits that its reason for striking juror 167 was constitutionally permissible and not pretextual. We agree with the State and begin by addressing the...