Butler v. State

DIONYSUS RODNELL BUTLER, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 519

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

July 27, 2020

Circuit Court for Talbot County

Case No. C-20-CR-18-000185

UNREPORTED

Fader, C.J., Berger, James A. Kenney III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Fader, C.J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

A jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Talbot County convicted Dionysus Rodnell Butler, Jr., the appellant, of multiple offenses arising from a fatal shooting. Mr. Butler argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of (1) conspiracy to commit armed robbery, (2) armed robbery, (3) felony murder, and (4) use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Because Mr. Butler did not state with particularity the grounds for his motion before the trial court, he has failed to preserve his challenges on appeal. Even if Mr. Butler's arguments were properly preserved, we nonetheless would find them without merit. We will therefore affirm the convictions.

BACKGROUND¹

The State's theory of prosecution was that Mr. Butler and a group of co-conspirators arranged to meet the victim, Jorian Edwards, under the pretense of selling him a gun, but intended to rob him instead. During the ensuing encounter, Mr. Edwards was shot and killed. The State elicited the following evidence at trial during its case-in-chief:

• On the evening of July 23, 2018, Nicholas Goldstein, picked up Mr. Butler, Jawuan Blake, and Terrence Conway at the Walmart in Easton.² Mr. Butler was carrying a handgun.

• Messrs. Butler, Blake, and Conway met with Mr. Edwards to buy marijuana. During that interaction, Mr. Edwards "wanted to buy a gun" from the men, but "it didn't happen then."

• After Messrs. Butler, Blake, and Conway returned to Mr. Goldstein's vehicle, Mr. Butler said: "[T]he boy wanted to buy my gun, we can call him and see ifhe still wants to buy it but we're not really going to sell it to him we're just going to take his money."

• Mr. Butler used Mr. Blake's cell phone to call Mr. Edwards twice, both times over speakerphone, to ask if Mr. Edwards still wanted to purchase a gun. The first time, Mr. Edwards declined. The second time, when Mr. Butler offered to sell the gun at a lower price, Mr. Edwards accepted. The agreed price was $300.

• At approximately 8:00 to 8:30 p.m., the men arrived near the entrance of the Rails-to-Trails³ in Easton, where they had arranged to meet Mr. Edwards.⁴

• Messrs. Butler, Blake, and Conway exited the car and began walking up the trail. Mr. Goldstein did not accompany the other men and could not see them once they walked up the trail, but recalled that they were gone "for a couple minutes" before he heard two gunshots.

• Messrs. Blake and Conway ran back toward the car, followed by Mr. Butler.

• At the time he heard the second gunshot, Mr. Goldstein could see Mr. Blake and observed that he was not carrying a gun.

• All four men entered the car and drove away. As they were leaving, Mr. Butler, who was carrying a gun, told the men that "he's not stashing the gun, he's keeping it on him."

• Residents in the area called police after hearing the gunshots. When the police officers arrived, they found Mr. Edwards lying face down on the trail with a single gunshot wound in his lower back. Paramedics transported Mr. Edwards to the hospital, where he later died.

• Police officers also found at the scene a 9mm Luger shell casing and $300 in cash "[m]aybe five feet" away from Mr. Edwards's body.

• Approximately two weeks before the shooting, Mr. Butler purchased 9mm ammunition from the Easton Walmart. The State played for the jury security footage showing the purchase.

• During a search of Mr. Butler's home, police officers found a box of 9mm Luger ammunition with 12 rounds missing.

• During an interview of Mr. Butler conducted at the police station, a video recording of which the State played for the jury, Mr. Butler initially stated that Mr. Blake shot Mr. Edwards. Later in the same interview, Mr. Butler stated that he (Mr. Butler) had accidentally shot Mr. Edwards when the gun "just went off" as he was loading a clip into it.

At the close of the State's case, Mr. Butler moved for judgment of acquittal as to all counts. He argued, in full:

Your Honor, I'm going to make motions for judgement of acquittal as to the counts in this case. Specifically, Your Honor, count one charges murder in the first degree, the willful, deliberate and premeditated variety. I think that even in the light most favorable to the State at this point the State has not produced evidence of premeditation. Any evidence from which a jury could find that there was a premeditated intent to kill. I think even in the statement that has been admitted that it was said by the Defendant in the statement that it was a quote, an accident. That there was no intention to hurt or harm anyone. Based on that, Your Honor, I am moving for judgement of acquittal as to the count of murder in the first degree. As to the felony murder count, Your Honor, I am alleging that there has been insufficient proof of a robbery that would constitute the underlying felony for the felony murder. As to the rest of the counts, Your Honor, I would, I would just say as to the conspiracy counts, Your Honor, there really, don't believe the State has made a prima facie case of any agreement between anyone to accomplish these acts. I'll submit on the other counts, Your Honor.

The trial court denied the motion.⁵

Mr. Butler then testified in his own defense. He testified that he had no prior knowledge of any plan to rob Mr. Edwards; that Mr. Blake shot Mr. Edwards; and that Mr.Butler "ran off" after the shooting and left in the car. Mr. Butler testified that his contrary statements during the interview at the police station were untrue, and that he had lied to "get [the interview] over with" by "tell[ing] [the detective] what she wanted to hear."

At the close of all the evidence, Mr. Butler's counsel renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal. He did not make any additional argument, but instead relied on the arguments he had made previously. The trial court denied the renewed motion, deeming the evidence "adequate" to submit the case to the jury.

The jury found Mr. Butler guilty of felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and other related offenses that are not at issue on appeal. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for judgment of acquittal, "appellate review is limited." State v. Payton, 461 Md. 540, 557 (2018). "The reviewing court 'merely ascertains whether there is any relevant evidence, properly before the jury, legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.'" Id. (quoting Morgan v. State, 134 Md. App. 113, 126 (2000)). This Court "review[s] the sufficiency of the evidence, but . . . does not . . . 'measure the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Morgan, 134 Md. App. at 126 (quoting State v. Devers, 260 Md. 360, 371 (1971), overruled on other grounds by In re Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 312 Md. 280 (1986)).

I. MR. BUTLER'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL FAILED TO PRESERVE HIS CHALLENGE TO THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

Mr. Butler argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of (1) conspiracy to commit armed robbery, (2) felony murder, (3) armed robbery, and (4) use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The State asserts that Mr. Butler's motion failed to preserve his challenges. We agree.

A motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence is a prerequisite to a claim of evidentiary insufficiency on appeal. Haile v. State, 431 Md. 448, 464 (2013) (citing Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-104 (2001 Repl.) and Md. Rule 4-324). Rule 4-324(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] defendant may move for judgment of acquittal . . . at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence. The defendant shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted."

Because "[t]he language of [Rule 4-324(a)] is mandatory," Wallace v. State, 237 Md. App. 415, 432 (2018) (quoting State v. Lyles, 308 Md. 129, 135 (1986)), "a defendant must 'argue precisely the ways in which the evidence should be found wanting and the particular elements of the crime as to which the evidence is deficient,'" Arthur v. State, 420 Md. 512, 522 (2011) (quoting Starr v. State, 405 Md. 293, 303 (2008)). "Rule 4-324(a) is not satisfied by merely reciting a conclusory statement and proclaiming that the State failed to prove its case." Arthur, 420 Md. at 524. "Accordingly, a defendant 'is not entitled toappellate review of reasons stated for the first time on appeal.'" Id. at 523 (quoting Starr, 405 Md. at 302).

If a defendant moves unsuccessfully for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and proceeds to offer evidence on his own behalf, the initial motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. Md. Rule 4-324(c); Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474, 483 (1989). Thereafter, "a defendant is required to renew a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence or to argue anew why the evidence is insufficient to support a particular conviction." Hobby v. State, 436 Md. 526, 540 (2014). Unless requested by the court, a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal need not restate the reasons identified in a prior motion that is incorporated by reference, because "the reasons supporting the motion are [already] before the trial judge." Id. (quoting Warfield, 315 Md. at 487-88).

...