Garner v. State

MARK STEVEN GARNER, II v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 981

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

October 23, 2019

Circuit Court for St. Mary's County

Case No. C-18-CR-17-54

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Berger, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, James R., 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.

Mark Garner, appellant, was charged, in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, with second-degree murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and conspiracy to distribute heroin. Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to the police following his arrest. That motion was denied. A subsequent bench trial was held, and appellant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and reckless endangerment. The Court sentenced appellant to a term of 20 years' imprisonment, with all but ten years suspended, on the conviction of conspiracy, and a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment on the conviction of reckless endangerment. In this appeal, appellant presents three questions for our review:

1. Did the suppression court err in denying appellant's motion to suppress?

2. Did the trial court err in allowing a State's witness to "narrate" two surveillance videos that had been admitted into evidence?

3. Was the evidence adduced at trial sufficient to establish: (a) a conspiracy to distribute heroin; (b) the requisite mental state for reckless endangerment; or (c) that the chosen venue, St. Mary's County, was proper?

For reasons to follow, we hold that the suppression court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. We also hold that the trial court did not err in allowing the State's witness to testify as to what he saw in the two surveillance videos. Finally, we hold that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain both convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2016, Barbara Sneden was found deceased in her home. A State Medical Examiner later determined that Ms. Sneden's death was caused by "heroin intoxication." Appellant, who had provided Ms. Sneden with heroin prior to her death, was ultimately arrested and charged.

Suppression Hearing

Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to the police around the time of his arrest. At the hearing on that motion, Detective Andrew Mohler of the Calvert County Sheriff's Office testified that, in the early morning hours of September 30, 2016, he participated in the execution of a search-and-seizure warrant at appellant's residence. Detective Mohler testified that, upon executing the warrant at appellant's home, he came in contact with appellant while appellant was handcuffed and sitting on the toilet in one of the home's bathrooms. Upon coming in contact with appellant, Detective Mohler identified himself as "a detective with the sheriff's office." Detective Mohler then read to appellant an "Advice of Rights and Waiver" form, which advised, among other things, that appellant had a right to remain silent; that he had a right to an attorney; and that, if he chose to answer questions without an attorney, he could stop answering questions at any time. Detective Mohler then asked appellant if he understood his rights and if he wanted to make a statement without an attorney present. Appellant responded, "yes," to both questions. Detective Mohler also asked appellant if he had beenpromised anything or threatened to make a statement or if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Appellant responded, "no," to both questions.

Detective Mohler testified that, after appellant signed the waiver form, the two spoke "for approximately four to five minutes about a related investigation." During that conversation, Detective Mohler informed appellant that the officers "were there because of alleged CDS activity out of that house." Detective Mohler also told appellant that there were "other detectives" who were "interested in speaking with him" about "their investigations as well." Detective Mohler asked appellant "if he was amenable to that," and appellant responded that "he was."

Detective Mohler testified that, after the other detectives had spoken with appellant, he then spoke with appellant a second time "for approximately 15 to 20 more minutes." Following that second conversation, Detective Mohler asked appellant whether anyone had "beaten, threatened, or intimidated [him] in any manner in order to obtain this statement" and whether he wanted "to make any changes or corrections in [the statement]." Appellant responded, "no," to both questions. Detective Mohler also asked appellant if his statement had been made voluntarily; if appellant had read his statement; and if his statement was the truth. Appellant responded, "yes," to all three questions.

Detective Mohler testified that, during his conversation with appellant, appellant "appeared to be alert," was "awake" and "participatory" in the conversation and was not "impaired." Detective Mohler also testified that appellant appeared to understand what the detective was saying and that there were "no problems with communication." DetectiveMohler testified that approximately one and a half hours had passed between his initial contact with appellant and the end of their second conversation.

Regarding the circumstances of the conversation, Detective Mohler testified that his "general practice is to interview people in a bathroom" because "it's quieter" and because "it's an area that's easy to search quickly to make sure there's no weapons in there." Detective Mohler explained that appellant, who was dressed in shorts and a T-shirt, sat on "the toilet seat lid," that being "the only seat," while Detective Mohler, who was dressed in cargo pants, an outer vest carrier, and a mask, "squatted beside him." Although appellant had initially been handcuffed, Detective Mohler "believ[ed] he was unhandcuffed" for their conversation.

Detective Anthony Whipkey of the St. Mary's County Sherriff's Officer testified that he was at appellant's residence at the time of the execution of the warrant and that, while there, he interviewed appellant in the bathroom at appellant's residence. Detective Whipkey testified that the bathroom "wasn't small" and was bigger than "the interrogation rooms at the sheriff's office." At the time, appellant "was seated on the closed toilet" while Detective Whipkey "spent most of the time sitting on the corner of the sink near [appellant]." According to Detective Whipkey, Detective Mohler was present during the interview "a good amount of the time." Detective Whipkey recalled that another officer was in the bathroom when the interview began, but he could not remember if "he stayed the entire time." Detective Whipkey testified that he began interviewing appellant at 5:54 a.m., or approximately nine minutes after Detective Mohler began reviewing the "Adviceof Rights" form with appellant, and that the interview lasted approximately 20 minutes. Detective Whipkey recalled that appellant "was alert and talkative"; that he appeared "awake and alert"; that he did not appear to be "under the influence of either drugs or alcohol"; and that he did not appear to have any problem understanding the detective's questions.

At the start of his interview with Detective Whipkey, which was recorded, appellant acknowledged that he understood his "Miranda¹ rights"; that he consented to speak with the police; that he had not been promised anything or threatened; and that he had not been "tricked" into giving a statement. Following that acknowledgment by appellant, Detective Whipkey informed appellant that he was there "to talk about Barbara." Appellant then stated that he had met with Ms. Sneden the day before she died and had given her some heroin.

About midway through the interview, appellant asked Detective Whipkey, "What exactly are you trying to figure out?" Detective Whipkey responded that he was "trying to figure out what happened to Barbara the day before she died" and "trying to give the family some closure on what happened to their daughter." Appellant then continued discussing the circumstances of Ms. Sneden's death with Detective Whipkey. At some points during the recorded interview, appellant can be heard crying. Appellant also stated during the interview that he was having trouble with his memory because he had "been really heavy, using."

Deputy Nikki Gilmore of the Calvert County Sheriff's Office testified that she was present during the execution of the warrant at appellant's residence on September 30, 2016. Deputy Gilmore stated that appellant "was under arrest for specific charges at 6 a.m." based on "some things" that were found in appellant's residence upon the execution of the warrant. Deputy Gilmore also stated that appellant had visible track marks on his arms but that he did not appear to be under the influence.

Appellant testified on his own behalf, stating that, when the police executed the warrant at his house on September 30, 2016, he had not slept "for quite a while"; that he "was distraught about some recent events that had happened"; and that he had "been using" heroin, cocaine, and marijuana "consistently." Appellant testified that the police, upon entering the home, ordered him to the ground, handcuffed him, and then escorted him to the bathroom. Once appellant was in the bathroom, he "was forced to strip" for a "strip search." Appellant testified that he was "confused" and "humiliated."

Appellant testified that he remembered being advised of his "Miranda rights" by Detective Mohler and that, prior to that advisement, Detective Mohler stated that he wanted to talk to appellant about "Big Jesse." Appellant stated that he was never...