Bolden v. State

1

DEVONTA LEWIS BOLDEN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2203-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

April 11, 2024

UNREPORTED^[*]

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND

Circuit Court for Dorchester County Case No C-09-CR-22-000230

Nazarian, Zic, Robinson, Dennis M., Jr., (Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Nazarian, J.

On July 26, 2022, officers attempted to arrest Devonta Lewis Bolden for trespassing on posted property. When Mr. Bolden tried to flee, a struggle ensued and police recovered his satchel, which contained heroin and cocaine. He ultimately was convicted in the Circuit Court of Dorchester County of possession of both heroin and cocaine with the intent to distribute, two counts of reckless endangerment, resisting arrest, and related crimes.

On appeal, Mr. Bolden raises four errors relating to: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for reckless endangerment, (3) the admission of the controlled dangerous substances ("CDS") and related laboratory report, and (4) the trial court's denial of his request to remove a juror who indicated recalling being told facts about the case prior to trial. We reverse his convictions for reckless endangerment for insufficient evidence and affirm the remainder.

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of July 26, 2022, Officer Logan Rippons of the Cambridge Police Department was patrolling the 700 block of Douglas Street when he saw Mr. Bolden sitting on the porch of a "house [that] was boarded up and ha[d] two posted no trespassing signs." Body-worn cameras captured the interaction that followed. Officer Rippons and his partner, Officer Paul Casolaro, walked up to the residence and confronted Mr. Bolden. As Officer Rippons approached, Mr. Bolden headed to an alley between houses. When Officer Rippons reached out to seize Mr. Bolden's arm to place him under arrest, Mr. Bolden pulled away and ran toward the backyard. Officer Rippons pursued him and there was a struggle between the officers and Mr. Bolden. Officer Rippons deployed his taser, and Mr. Bolden was eventually cuffed and arrested.

Officer Casolaro seized a satchel Mr. Bolden tried to discard during the struggle, placed it in his patrol bag, and then moved it into his patrol vehicle. He transported Mr. Bolden to the hospital (to remove the taser prongs) and responded to another call before putting the satchel into "temp evidence" (one of four secured evidence lockers) at the station. Once at the police department, Officer Rippons "inventoried" the satchel and its contents, which contained ammunition and suspected CDS:

15 bundles of approximately 14 wax folds. 12 green small containers containing a white substance, suspected crack cocaine. 13 clear containers containing a white substance, suspected crack cocaine. Three rubber containers containing heroin, approximately the size of a lip gloss container.

Officer Rippons did not break the bundles^[1] apart due, he said, to the presence of suspected fentanyl within the wax folds. According to Officer Rippons, "[s]omebody else" packaged the items to be sent out for testing, but he was unaware of who that was. Stephanie Laufert, a forensic chemist in the Maryland State Police, Forensic Sciences Division, tested the substances and found that they contained cocaine and heroin.

The State filed a fifteen-count indictment in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County charging Mr. Bolden with (1) possession of heroin with intent to distribute, (2) possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, (3-4) two counts of second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer, (5-6) two counts of second-degree assault, (7-8) two counts of reckless endangerment, (9) resisting arrest, (10) possession of heroin, (11) possession of cocaine, (12) illegal possession of ammunition, (13) trespassing on posted property, (14) failing to obey a reasonable and lawful order of a law enforcement officer, and (15) disorderly conduct.

Mr. Bolden filed a motion to suppress the evidence from the satchel, which was denied on December 19, 2022. After a two-day jury trial, Mr. Bolden was convicted of possession of both heroin and cocaine with the intent to distribute, two counts of reckless endangerment, resisting arrest, possession of cocaine and heroin, illegal possession of ammunition, failing to obey a lawful order of a law enforcement officer, and disorderly conduct. The State entered a nolle prosequi for the trespassing charge and the jury acquitted Mr. Bolden of the assault-based charges. Mr. Bolden was sentenced to an aggregate fifteenyear term of imprisonment. He timely appealed his convictions.

Additional facts will be supplied as necessary below.

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Bolden presents four issues in his appeal, which we have reordered and reworded:^[2] first, whether the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Officer Rippons lacked probable cause to arrest him, second, whether the evidence that he wrestled with officers and pointed and deployed a taser in the direction of Officer Casolaro was sufficient to sustain his convictions for reckless endangerment, third, whether the State established a proper chain of custody for the admission of the CDS and corresponding lab report, and fourth, whether the circuit court abused its discretion denying defense counsel's request to remove a juror. We agree with Mr. Bolden with respect to the reckless endangerment issue and reverse those convictions, but affirm otherwise.

A. The Trial Court Denied Mr. Bolden's Motion To Suppress Properly Because Officer Rippons Had Probable Cause To Arrest Mr. Bolden.

The first issue is whether the evidence seized incident to Mr. Bolden's arrest should have been suppressed. Mr. Bolden argues that Officer Rippons's "conduct violated the Fourth Amendment" because "he lacked probable cause to make an arrest and he failed to articulate any otherwise valid basis to support his illegal arrest." We disagree and hold that Officer Rippons had probable cause to arrest Mr. Bolden for trespassing on posted private property.

1. Proceedings below.

On December 19, 2022, the court held a hearing on Mr. Bolden's motion to suppress where Mr. Bolden argued there was no probable cause to arrest him. In response, the State offered the testimony of Officer Rippons, a photograph of the house showing the no trespassing signs, and Officer Rippons's body-worn camera footage. Mr. Bolden offered a letter from the resident of 712 Douglas Street^[3] stating that she granted him permission to be on her property.

Officer Rippons testified that he was patrolling the area of Douglas Street for "proactive policing" in order to "eliminate crime" in an area known for drug activity and violence. He stated that at the time of the incident, he knew that the 714 Douglas Street property had been boarded up and unoccupied for "at least a week" before observing "Mr. Bolden and a female subject sitting on the porch."

He stated, "As I pulled up, parked my car, Mr. Bolden jumped off the porch, started heading towards the back of the residence," at which point, Officer Rippons called Mr. Bolden back to him to arrest him for trespassing. That's when Officer Rippons "saw a satchel across his chest." When approached, Mr. Bolden begins "blading his body," which shows "a risk of flight and also that they might be hiding something on the side that they're blading away from you." Officer Rippons believed Mr. Bolden "might be hiding something" and "[h]e start[ed] backing away." He stated that he went "to grab him and he takes off running." He caught up to Mr. Bolden and "[w]ent to detain or to arrest Mr. Bolden" but "he just kept resisting." Mr. Bolden attempted to discard the satchel by throwing it (Officer Rippons testified, "But it was always in eyesight."), and after a brief struggle, Mr. Bolden was arrested and the satchel was seized.

The State argued that Officer Rippons "had first-hand knowledge that that house was abandoned" such that there was a trespass occurring in the presence of a law enforcement officer. The State also asserted that the officers had authority to detain Mr. Bolden based solely on his flight from them in a high crime area, at which point he assaulted the police officers, providing another basis to arrest Mr. Bolden. And the search of the satchel was incident to a lawful arrest. Mr. Bolden, on the other hand, argued that "absent a call or complaint" about someone trespassing at the property, the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for trespassing. In addition, before his arrest "Mr. Bolden [did] stop and submit to the officer's commands," but otherwise he was "allowed to not submit to an unlawful detention."

The court denied the motion, finding that the stop was lawful, the arrest was lawful, and the evidence from Mr. Bolden's person was seized lawfully:

[W]e've heard testimony that [Mr. Bolden] was known by the officer to not reside there and that . . . the residence was boarded up, had been for about a week, and had no trespassing signs there.

So initially the court's view is that there was probable cause to arrest the Defendant at that point in time, take him into custody. Any search into that would have been lawful. But even if that is not the case, certainly those facts together constitute a reasonable, articula[ble] suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

. . . What happens during that investigatory stop is that assaults are committed, including physical assaults, and the disarming of the officer . . . of his taser in an effort apparently to deploy that towards the partner.

2. Suppression analysis.

Our review of a motion to suppress evidence is limited to the record of the suppression hearing, and we view the record...