Curtis v. State

259 Md.App. 283

303 A.3d 970

Sheldon CURTIS v. STATE of Maryland

No. 455, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland.

October 24, 2023

Argued by Andrea M. Chaknis, law student specially authorized pursuant to Rule 19-220 ( Marc A. DeSimone, Jr., Haley Licha, Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant

Argued by Menelik Coates, Asst. Atty. Gen. ( Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee

Argued before: Leahy, Beachley, Charles E. Moylan (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Leahy, J.

On a cold December night in 2020, Ms. Sarah Hockaday ran out of her apartment barefoot and crying. She ran over to her neighbor, Ms. Day, who was smoking a cigarette in the parking lot, and then ran into Ms. Day's apartment where she told Ms. Day that she was afraid of her boyfriend. That safe haven did not hold firm because Ms. Hockaday's boyfriend got into the neighbor's apartment where he beat and strangled her. After emergency medical personnel transported Ms. Hockaday to MedStar St. Mary's Hospital, the emergency care physician asked Ms. Hockaday "what happened to her." Ms. Hockaday related, in response to the doctor's inquiry, that "she was assaulted by her boyfriend multiple times" and experienced "an episode of loss of consciousness" which lasted approximately two minutes.

On January 4, 2021, the State filed a criminal indictment against Ms. Hockaday's boyfriend, Mr. Sheldon Lyvonne Curtis ("Appellant").

Appellant was tried before a jury in October 2021 in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, Maryland. The jury acquitted him of attempted second-degree murder but convicted him on two counts of first-degree assault of Ms. Hockaday. At the sentencing hearing on May 12, 2022, the circuit court merged Appellant's convictions for first-degree assault and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years, with twelve years suspended.

Appellant noted a timely appeal and claims the trial court's admission of two hearsay statements over defense counsel's objections constituted reversible error. He frames the issues as follows:

1. "Did the lower court err in admitting a statement which identified not the cause of the injury, but the perpetrator, pursuant to the hearsay exception for statements made for the purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis?"

2. "Did the lower court err in admitting an excited utterance where the declaration was made an unknown amount of time after the startling event, away from the scene of the incident?"

We discern no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of Ms. Hockaday's statements through the testimony of the emergency care physician and her neighbor. First, we hold that Ms. Hockaday's statement to her emergency care physician that she was assaulted by her boyfriend qualified as a statement made for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis under Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(4) where: (1) Ms. Hockaday made the statement within a few hours of the assault in a health care setting, while she was still suffering from her injuries, in response to a medical provider who asked her "what happened"; and (2) the statement described the external cause of Ms. Hockaday's symptoms and was reasonably pertinent to the treatment of her injuries as a victim of intimate partner violence.

Second, we hold that Ms. Hockaday's frenzied demeanor, her palpable fear of continuing and imminent danger, and her pleas for help constituted a sufficient foundation for the court to find that she was still "under the stress of excitement caused by" a startling event when she told her neighbor that she was afraid of her boyfriend. Md. Rule 5-803(b)(2). Accordingly, we shall affirm Appellant's convictions.

BACKGROUND

The following account is derived from the evidence adduced at Appellant's jury trial on October 12 and 13, 2021, viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Molina v. State , 244 Md. App. 67, 87, 222 A.3d 222 (2019). Our summary of the trial record provides the necessary background for our discussion of the dispositive issues in this appeal, rather than a comprehensive review of the evidence presented.

At approximately 7:30 A.M. on December 11, 2020, the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Department received emergency calls reporting that a woman outside of an apartment complex in the River Bay community was screaming for help. Deputy Courtney Edwards was dispatched to the scene and upon arrival she was approached by a woman later identified as Sarah Hockaday. Deputy Edwards observed that Ms. Hockaday "had a lot of blood in her mouth and on her hands" and was "crying" and "[v]ery fearful." Ms. Hockaday reported to Deputy Edwards that she was in severe pain and that "he was going crazy." Emergency medical personnel transported Ms. Hockaday to the hospital for treatment.

After alerting Ms. Hockaday's sister of the incident, Deputy Edwards attempted to gain entry to Ms. Hockaday's apartment but was unable to do so. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Edwards spoke with Ms. Hockaday while she was being treated. After obtaining Ms. Hockaday's statement, the Sheriff's Department applied for and obtained a warrant for Appellant's arrest. Ms. Carleigh Ruleman, a crime lab technician with the Sheriff's Department, collected DNA samples from Ms. Hockaday.

On December 28, 2020, Appellant turned himself in to the Sheriff's Department. Tragically, by then Ms. Hockaday had passed away on December 23, 2020, from causes unrelated to the assault.

A grand jury indicted Appellant on five charges: (1) attempted second-degree murder of Ms. Hockaday; (2) first-degree assault of Ms. Hockaday by strangulation; (3) first-degree assault of Ms. Hockaday by causing or attempting to cause serious physical injury; (4) second-degree assault of Ms. Hockaday by grabbing her hair; and (5) second-degree assault of Ms. Hockaday by striking her with a belt.

During the course of their investigation, on April 17, 2021, police presented Ms. Deanna Day—Ms. Hockaday's neighbor and an eyewitness to the assault—with a photo array prepared by the crime lab technician, Ms. Ruleman. Ms. Day identified Appellant—Photo Number 2 in the array—as the boyfriend and perpetrator of the assault. Deputy Richard Wilhelmi, the officer who presented the photo array and observed Ms. Day's reaction, noted that she identified Appellant after approximately ten seconds. According to Deputy Wilhelmi, Ms. Day stated that her level of certainty about the identification was "I'm pretty sure. I believe so." After Deputy Wilhelmi followed up on Ms. Day's confidence about the veracity of the identification, Ms. Day reiterated "um, I believe so."

At trial on October 12, 2021, the primary issues became establishing Appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the assault on Ms. Hockaday and proving the severity of Ms. Hockaday's injuries. The State presented its case-in-chief over two days, calling eight witnesses. Appellant exercised his right to not testify at trial and further opted to not call witnesses or present evidence, instead taking the position that Ms. Hockaday's level of intoxication on the morning of the assault rendered her reporting unreliable. Defense counsel also underscored during opening argument that "[w]e don't know who else she had contact with" due to the presence of other DNA from other male contributors found under her fingernails.

To establish Appellant's identity as the perpetrator, the State relied primarily on the testimony of Ms. Day. She told the jury she lived in the River Bay community and knew Ms. Hockaday, and clarified that she knew Appellant by sight but not by name. She recalled that, sometime after midnight on December 11, 2020, she was outside smoking a cigarette in the parking lot when Ms. Hockaday "ran outside with no shoes." Ms. Hockaday was "crying" and "ran over" to Ms. Day "pleading" for help. Ms. Day said that "then she ran into my house ... I really didn't know what was going on, like, what was she afraid of."

Next, over defense counsel's objection, Ms. Day was permitted to relate that Ms. Hockaday, after entering Ms. Day's residence, stated that she was "afraid of her boyfriend." In overruling the objection, the court engaged in the following discussion with counsel:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection to hearsay, she's testifying about what was (indiscernible).

[THE STATE]: It's an excited utterance. I mean, crying, fearful, immediately coming in, obviously she had a startling event.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If I can be heard?

THE COURT: Sure.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Number one, I don't think a sufficient foundation has been laid for that, that this particular utterance was an excited utterance. You have to lay a foundation for that.

Number two, the statement would have to be about an event that immediately -- that immediately preceded ....

[THE STATE]: .... as far as the foundation, the foundation is as simple as the demeanor of being -- appearing under a startling event, and still being under that demeanor, which is the crying, the fearful, and running into her house, she then said what happened. That is an excited utterance.

THE COURT: ... is it the State's position that this assault had already occurred at this point?

[THE STATE]: Part of it. Some of it.

* * *

THE COURT: Based on her testimony as to the fact that Ms. Hockaday came running out, was without shoes, approached her, was crying, and the witness’ statement that she was afraid and went into the residence with the witness, I am going to overrule the objection.

Ms. Day resumed her testimony, explaining that she agreed to let Ms. Hockaday stay "downstairs" in her residence for the night. She said that, after she went upstairs to go to sleep, she "saw [Appellant] and they started to argue" inside her apartment. Ms. Day had "no idea" how Appellant entered her apartment. She testified that Ms. Hockaday began running up the stairs and "[h]e ran up the stairs" in pursuit. She saw Appe...