Boykin v. State

1

CHRISTIAN D. BOYKIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1569-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

May 14, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CT221266X

Berger, Ripken, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Ripken, J.

In September of 2022, Christian Boykin ("Appellant") was indicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on 11 counts which included armed carjacking, assault in the first and second degree, and transporting a handgun, among other offenses.^[1] Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress arguing that the show-up identification of Appellant was the fruit of an unlawful detention. Appellant also contended that the show-up identification was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable requiring its suppression. Following two hearings, the court rejected both arguments and denied the motion. At the conclusion of trial, Appellant was convicted of carjacking, assault in the second degree, and taking of a motor vehicle and was subsequently sentenced to 30 years of incarceration, all but 8 years suspended. Appellant timely appealed.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:^[2]

I. Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the show-up identification was not the fruit of an unlawful pursuit and detention.

II. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the show-up identification was not impermissibly suggestive or unreliable.

DISCUSSION

I. The Show-up Identification Was Not the Fruit of an Unlawful Pursuit or Detention.

A. Factual and Procedural Background

While Appellant filed a singular motion to suppress, the two arguments he raised therein were bifurcated into separate hearings based on the availability of witnesses. Appellant's contention that the stop and subsequent detention were unlawful, and thus the show-up and other evidence obtained were the fruit of the poisonous tree, were addressed in the first hearing.^[3] The following facts are drawn from the hearing record, which included testimony, audio from the 911 call, and dispatch radio communications.

During the hearing, the State played the audio of the 911 call, which was admitted into evidence. The 911 call precipitated the complaint Corporal Norman received from the dispatch. During the 911 call, Sandra Nwaokoro ("Nwaokoro") detailed the incident, informed the operator of the events as they occurred, and provided a description of her location, the vehicle in which Appellant fled, and its occupants:

911 Operator: Prince George's County 911 Center. Where is the location of the emergency?

[Nwaokoro]:^[4] Somebody just took -- somebody is in my car. Somebody tried to take my car. He is literally sitting in my car right now.

911 Operator: What's the location?

[Nwaokoro]: He just took my car.

911 Operator: What is the location?

[Nwaokoro]: [street number omitted] Be[e]chwood Road.^[5] He had a gun and he just got in my car. Please, he just took my car.^[6]

[Nwaokoro]: Ma'am, they just pulled off. They left my car. They couldn't take it.

911 Operator: Okay. What car -- what color car they drive off in?

[Nwaokoro]: It was a Nissan. It was two black individuals.

911 Operator: They drove off?

[Nwaokoro]: They couldn't drive my car. Yeah, they drove off because I had my car on safety park and when he got me yanked me out -- they just left. He couldn't figure it out. When I was on the phone with you I was down the street and I walked up, hopped on, and left.

911 Operator: . . . What color was the Nissan he drove off in?

[Nwaokoro]: It was black.

911 Operator: Which way did they go?

[Nwaokoro]: They went in the opposite direction from [street number omitted] - 911 Operator: Did they go to Riggs Road or -- did they go Riggs Road --

[Nwaokoro]: Yes.

911 Operator: -- 23^rd Avenue?

[Nwaokoro]: Riggs Road. One of the dudes have like a black hat on. He was kind of fat. The other dude was skinny.

911 operator: There were three of them?

[Nwaokoro]: Two.

911 Operator: One was wearing a hat and what else?

[Nwaokoro]: Like a -- one was wearing like a ski hat. Like, you know, like a snow hat.

911 Operator: A ski mask?

[Nwaokoro]: And the other one -- no. No. Hat. Like a winter hat.

911 Operator: Okay.

[Nwaokoro]: And the other guy was just skinny with like short dreads.

911 Operator: That's the one with the gun, is that correct?

[Nwaokoro]: Yes.

Corporal Norman, the sole witness called to testify at the hearing, explained that on the evening of June 26th, 2022, he was in a marked patrol car, conducting "proactive patrol" in the area of "East-West Highway, Riggs Road" when a call came out over dispatch for an armed carjacking in the "neighborhoods directly off of Riggs Road." Upon hearing the call, Corporal Norman testified that he started heading in that direction to patrol the area for suspects, when he was stopped at a traffic light at East-West Highway and Riggs Road. While sitting at the traffic light, an unidentified officer transmitted over the radio that he "did have a black sedan pull out of Beach Road - - Beachwood Road onto Riggs, pass me just as you gave that [description]." Per the recording of the radio transmissions, moments before the unidentified officer spotted the vehicle, dispatch had shared that the suspect "drove off in another vehicle" noting "[s]uspect's vehicle is a black Nissan [.]"

Corporal Norman testified further that at the traffic light he "observed a black in color Nissan come to the light at Riggs Road going Southbound towards [the] District of Columbia." When the light changed color, "the vehicle [Corporal Norman] had seen accelerated at a high rate of speed towards [the] District of Columbia on its own - - without any provocation from [him]." Corporal Norman completed a U-turn and then "headed southbound to try to catch up to the vehicle." After reaching the vehicle, Corporal Norman asked dispatch whether a license plate tag had been reported, and immediately informed dispatch that he was behind a black Nissan Altima. At which point, Corporal Norman crossed into the District of Columbia in continuation of the pursuit.

After the pursuit continued into the District of Columbia, the vehicle "veered slight right into neighborhoods" where "the driver of the vehicle continued to . . . circle the neighborhood" per the testimony of Corporal Norman. The vehicle then entered an alleyway, while Corporal Norman continued to pursue it, and "came to a slow roll" when "two people . . . bailed out of the vehicle." At the direction of the shift lieutenant, Corporal Norman began to "break off" the pursuit when in a "matter of like two to five seconds" the vehicle "abruptly stopped" and appellant "fled on foot[.]" Corporal Norman continued pursuit of Appellant on foot because "fle[eing] on foot, that is a very different policy[.]"

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress the show-up identification and any other resulting evidence on the grounds that the pursuit and detention were lawful. In so holding, the court relied on section 2-301 of the Criminal Procedure ("CP") Article of the Maryland Code, which articulates the elements and conditions of fresh pursuit in the state by a law enforcement officer of a jurisdiction in Maryland. Section 2-301 permits an officer to "engage in fresh pursuit of a person who . . . has committed or is reasonably believed by the law enforcement officer to have committed a felony in the jurisdiction in which the law enforcement officer has the power of arrest" such that the officer may "arrest the person anywhere in the State and hold the person in custody; and . . . return the person to the jurisdiction in which a court has proper venue for the crime alleged to have been committed by the person." CP §§ 2-301(c)(1) &(d).

In holding that Corporal Norman "had reasonable belief that the vehicle had been involved in a felony in the jurisdiction and therefore, under the law, had the ability to leave Prince George's County, Maryland and follow the vehicle in [to] Washington, D.C.[,]" the court noted that the following facts were relevant to its holding:^[7]

The officer had information . . . from an identified victim who described what had just happened to her. This is not the same thing as an anonymous source of information. The courts have - - though she may not have given her name, she is calling from her phone number. We all know that phone numbers are recorded when one calls 911 as part of the CAD sheet. It is part of the record. That makes someone known more so than an anonymous tip.

***

So, again, we have here the officer receiving information that an armed carjacking had just occurred. Turned out that it was an armed -- attempted carjacking.... Once further investigation occurred, but he received information that an armed carjacking had just occurred in a particular area. He was in the area at the stop light at East-West Highway. He heard the broadcast to look for a black Nissan going in a particular direction. He saw a black Nissan in the place he was told the Black Nissan was involved in -what he thought at the moment, was an armed carjacking going in the direction that he was told, matched the description, had multiple people in the car, which was part of the description.

The Nissan then, according to the testimony of the officer sped toward the District of Columbia. After making a U-turn by the officer, the Nissan then drove at an extremely high rate of speed, which was what the officer testified. He said there was only a second or two between hearing the lookout for the black Nissan and when he saw it where the lookout said it was going to be going in the direction he said -- that

...