Canales-Yanez v. State

244 Md.App. 285

223 A.3d 1040

Jose CANALES-YANEZ

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 2209, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

January 29, 2020

Argued by: Robert W. Biddle (Rachel L. Wilson, Nathans & Biddle, LLP, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Benjamin A. Harris (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

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

Beachley, J.

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, the court convicted Jose O. Canales-Yanez, appellant, of two counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and other related offenses. Before sentencing, the State revealed a previously undisclosed recording and transcript of a police interview of the parents of one of the State's key witnesses. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the State's failure to disclose the interview constituted a Brady¹ violation. The court denied the motion.

Appellant presents the following question on appeal, which we have slightly modified:

Did the circuit court err in denying a new trial based on a Brady violation stemming from the State's failure to disclose a police interview of the mother and stepfather of one of the State's principal witnesses?²

For the reasons to follow, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2017, the night before their high school graduation, Shadi Najjar and Artem Zibrov were shot and killed. The two were gunned down at approximately 10:30 p.m. while sitting in Shadi's car in Gallery Court, a cul-de-sac in Montgomery Village, Maryland. Police arrested four individuals suspected of conspiring to commit these murders: Roger Garcia, Edgar Garcia-Gaona, Rony Galicia, and appellant.

Ms. Kuria's First Interview

Victoria Kuria was dating Roger Garcia, one of the suspects, at the time of the murders. Detective Frank Springer interviewed Ms. Kuria on June 29, 2017. During that interview, she stated that she knew nothing about the murders, but that she was at Roger's home the night the murders took place. In that interview, Ms. Kuria gave the following version of events: After she left work that day, she went to her parents' house, picked up her dog, and then went to Roger's house. Present at Roger's house when she arrived were Roger, Roger's father, and a friend of Roger's known as "Joker." After smoking marijuana, Ms. Kuria napped in Roger's bedroom from approximately 9:30 to 10:20 p.m. When she woke up, Roger was still in the bedroom. She left shortly after waking up, to return home before her midnight curfew. When asked about appellant, she told police that she had "seen him before," but did not know him well.

Detective Springer told Ms. Kuria that he did not believe that she was being truthful. He emphasized multiple times that it was a crime to lie to the police, and suggested that Ms. Kuria take a polygraph test. Ms. Kuria refused the polygraph and asked to speak with a lawyer. This concluded Ms. Kuria's first interaction with the police.

The Undisclosed Interview with Ms. Kuria's Parents

On October 10, 2017, Detective Springer and Detective Gwynn³ visited the home of Ms. and Mr. Bell, Ms. Kuria's mother and step-father, hoping to contact Ms. Kuria. When Detective Springer stated that the police were investigating the murders, Mr. Bell said, "[Ms. Kuria] knows about that, she knows about that. She said she knew who did it, don't you remember?" In response, Ms. Bell stated that Ms. Kuria told her she did not know who committed the murders. A short argument between the two followed, without further details being elicited.

The detectives then made it clear that they believed Ms. Kuria had lied in her first interview with police. They emphasized that Ms. Kuria could be prosecuted for lying to the police, stating, "when you have information in a case and you lie to the police about it, that can turn into a crime for you." The detectives also explained that they were not looking for Ms. Kuria to arrest her for making false statements, but to "give her a second chance" to "tell the truth." Detective Springer said, "She's not in trouble, the problem is, because she's lied to us and we can prove it now, that could be an issue for her and I'm trying to make it so that it's not an issue for her.... But in order for that to happen, I need her to come in and talk to me and tell me the truth."

Notably, the State did not provide the recording and transcript of this interview to defense counsel prior to trial. This omission became the basis for appellant's Brady claim and the focus of this appeal.

Ms. Kuria's Second Interview

On October 11, 2017, the day after the undisclosed interview, Detective Springer again interviewed Ms. Kuria. This time, Ms. Kuria told the detectives that she arrived at Roger's house with her dog, smoked marijuana, and fell asleep in Roger's bedroom at approximately 7:00 p.m. When she went to sleep, Roger, his brother Edgar, Joker, and a large Hispanic man she did not recognize were in Roger's bedroom. She woke up shortly before 9:30 p.m. and recounted that seven individuals were in the room: Roger, appellant, two African-American men she did not recognize, Joker, Edgar, and the large Hispanic man who was there before she fell asleep. Most of these people were huddled in a small group, looking at a phone. She overheard someone say the word "court" in the context of an address, and heard someone say, "Montgomery Village Avenue" or "East Montgomery Village Avenue." Once she was fully awake, she immediately gathered her things and left the house. As she was leaving at approximately 9:30 p.m., she noticed that the phone that had the small group's attention was displaying a map. Outside, Ms. Kuria saw a silver SUV that she had seen before, but which was not typically in the neighborhood. Within a week after the murders, Roger told Ms. Kuria, "whatever you do, don't ask me why, but whatever you do, if anyone asks you any questions, say you left my house at like 10:20, 10:30," because "if you say that, you know, it only gives me 10 minutes."

Ms. Kuria told the police that she had spoken with three individuals about the events of the night of the murders. She said that she spoke with her mother about it, "but [she] didn't tell her everything." She also spoke with an ex-boyfriend named Diego, saying, "I didn't tell him too much, but I would tell him enough to try to make sense of it." She asked Diego if he thought people at Roger's house that night might have committed the murders. Ms. Kuria also indicated that, shortly after the murders, she had spoken in greater detail about the events of June 5 with a co-worker named Jasmine.

During this second interview, both Detective Springer and Ms. Kuria acknowledged that the detectives had spoken with Ms. Bell. Indeed, Ms. Kuria confirmed that she had spoken with her mother the previous evening.

Ms. Kuria revealed that she lied during the first interview because she was living with Roger's family and feared retribution.⁴

Trial

Appellant was arrested on June 17, 2017, and was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and other related offenses. Three other co-conspirators, Roger Garcia, Edgar Garcia-Gaona, and Rony Galicia, were also arrested. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to trial before the court.

During the trial, the State presented evidence that Roger Garcia was in contact with one of the victims, Shadi Najjar, through Snapchat⁵ shortly before the murders, arranging to meet him at Gallery Court to purchase an extra graduation ticket. Cell tower data showed that appellant's phone and the phones of two other co-conspirators were all in the vicinity of Roger's house from 9:26 to 10:11 p.m. on June 5, 2017. The cell tower data also showed that the phones moved toward the location of Gallery Court at the time of the murders, and then moved back to Roger's house shortly thereafter. Call and text messaging history from March 6 to June 5, 2017, was deleted from appellant's phone.

An eyewitness to the murders testified that she saw "an old, gray van" drive around the cul-de-sac. Immediately after the witness lost sight of the van, she heard "rapid fireworks" coming from the area where the van was traveling. Another witness who lived near the scene of the crime heard gunshots and saw what he described as either a silver or beige minivan or SUV leaving Gallery Court shortly thereafter.

Forensic specialists testified that four handguns were used during the murders. DNA found on casings at the crime scene matched Rony Galicia, who was living at Roger's house. Police found appellant's fingerprint on a box of live cartridges retrieved from Roger's house. The cartridges matched the caliber and brand of some of those used in the murders. Outside Roger's house, police found a live cartridge of a different caliber from those in the box. This cartridge had been loaded into one of the weapons used in the murders.⁶

Edgar's girlfriend, Luz DaSilva, testified that she saw Edgar alighting from appellant's silver or gray hybrid SUV at midnight on the night of the murders. None of the other co-conspirators owned a vehicle at the time. Ms. DaSilva testified that Edgar was acting nervously and watching television news reports about the murders the next day. On June 15, appellant was talking to Edgar at Edgar's house about leaving a box of bullets there "because it was too hot outside," which Ms. DaSilva understood to have something to do with the police. During cross-examination, Ms. DaSilva testified that Edgar sold drugs out of Roger's room, using the outside entrance near where police found the single live cartridge. She also stated that appellant frequently visited Roger's house.

Ms. Kuria also testified at trial, providing a rendition of events substantially similar to those related during her second police interview. Her trial testimony differed from her second...