Harris v. State

1

PRENTICE LEE HARRIS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 587-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 16, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Wicomico County Case No. C-22-CR-21-000529

Wells C.J., Tang, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

RAKER J.

A jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County found appellant, Prentice Lee Harris, guilty of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor, three counts of first-degree rape, four counts of second-degree rape, eight counts of third-degree sex offense, eight counts of fourth-degree sex offense, second-degree assault, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and possession of more than 10 grams of marijuana. Appellant raises the following questions for our review:

1. "Did the trial court err in denying defense counsel's motion for mistrial after the jury heard Detective Shultz's vouching for M.'s credibility?

2. Did the trial court err in denying defense counsel's motion for mistrial after the State vouched for M.'s credibility?

3. Does the cumulative effect of Detective Shultz's vouching for M. and the State's vouching for M. require reversal?

4. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain two of the counts for first-degree rape with the use or threat of a dangerous weapon?

5. Is Mr. Harris's sentence to life without the possibility of parole illegal?"

We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motions for mistrial; that the cumulative effect of the two alleged instances of vouching do not require reversal; that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for first-degree rape while employing or displaying a dangerous weapon; but that appellant's sentence of life without the possibility of parole is illegal. We shall remand with instructions to strike the "no-parole" provision in appellant's sentence, but otherwise affirm the judgments.

Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Wicomico County on two counts of sexual abuse of a minor, six counts of first-degree rape, attempted first-degree rape, six counts of second-degree rape, attempted second-degree rape, nine counts of third-degree sex offense, nine counts of fourth-degree sex offense, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and possession of more than 10 grams of marijuana.

Appellant proceeded to trial before a jury. After the presentation of evidence, the trial court granted appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal on attempted first-degree rape, three counts of first-degree rape, attempted second-degree rape, and one count of second-degree rape. Relevant to this appeal, the remaining counts of first-degree rape the court sent to the jury included two counts of first-degree rape while employing or displaying a dangerous weapon and one count of first-degree rape through the threat of imminent serious physical injury. The jury acquitted appellant of one count of second-degree rape, one count of third-degree sex offense, one count of fourth-degree sex offense, and first-degree assault. The jury found appellant guilty of all remaining counts.

The court imposed a term of incarceration of twenty-five years for the first count of sexual abuse of a minor, a consecutive sentence of life imprisonment without parole for the first count of first-degree rape while employing or displaying a dangerous weapon, consecutive parole-eligible sentences of life imprisonment for each additional count of first-degree rape and the first count of second-degree rape, and consecutive terms of incarceration of twenty years for the second and third counts of second-degree rape. The court merged or imposed no sentence on the remaining counts.

These charges stem from appellant's long-term abuse of M. Appellant was the romantic partner of the victim's late grandmother,^[1] with whom he shared a home in Salisbury, in Wicomico County. The victim, M., who was sixteen years old at the time of trial, had been "very close" to her grandmother and frequently stayed overnight at her home. M. referred to appellant as her "Poppop," and appellant regarded M. and her siblings as his grandchildren.

Beginning when M. was twelve or thirteen years of age, appellant committed an escalating series of sexual assaults against her. During direct examination, M. testified to four specific sexual assaults:

1. When M. was "twelve or thirteen," appellant "touched [her] thighs and [her] privates" underneath her clothes and "made [her] touch his."

2. "[M]aybe a month or two later," appellant stripped down to his boxer shorts and ordered M. to remove her top and pants, and he rubbed "[h]is privates" against hers through their underwear.

3. "Maybe a week" after the previous assault, appellant forcibly raped M. while they were in a car, parked near an apartment complex.

4. "[M]aybe a few weeks after" the "car ride," while they were in his home, appellant "showed [M.] his guns," pointed a gun at her thigh, and forcibly raped her "over and over again."

M. then testified that, after appellant first began to have vaginal intercourse with her, he did so frequently. He would force her to fellate him to orgasm. According to M., appellant "choked" her "a few times" to coerce her to engage in sexual relations, while, at other times, he would give her cannabis before sex "to calm [her] down."

During cross-examination, trial counsel attempted to impeach M. with a statement she had made to a social worker from the Child Advocacy Center. The following occurred:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You also told the jury that the only time that gun was involved in your sexual, [appellant's] sexual relations with you was one point in time when he pointed the gun at your thigh, correct?

[M.]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is that yes?

[M.]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you recall speaking to Ms. Fleming?

[M.]: Yes. And said he keeps guns around.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You told Ms. Fleming that at some point in time Mr. Harris pointed the gun at your head?

[M.]: Yes. That was close to when told.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You just had the opportunity to tell the jury about Mr. Harris pointing the gun at you, why didn't you tell the jury moments ago about Mr. Harris allegedly pointing the gun at your head?

[M.]: 'Cause I don't like thinking about it, it makes me not want to live. Do you think I wanna feel like that?

(Witness crying.)

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, [M.] I don't have any further questions of this witness at this time, Your Honor.

On redirect examination, the prosecutor provided M. an opportunity to clarify her testimony:

[THE STATE]: And the time he used the gun, I think you said you thought it was real; is that right?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: And I had asked you if you ever saw him shoot "the gun", did you think I meant the gun he was showing you at that time?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: But you said you've seen him actually shoot a different gun in the past; is that right?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: I think you said it was silver; is that right?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: And the one he used in the sexual incidents, I think you said was black, right?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: Did you think the one he was using during the sexual incidents was real because you had seen the prior one?

[M.]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: And you said he had actually pointed it at your head at a closer incident to when you told people about what was happening, right?

[M.]: Yes.

Eventually, in December 2021, M.'s mother ("Mother")^[2] learned from someone in the neighborhood that appellant had been abusing her daughter. Mother, after arriving home from work shortly after midnight, awakened M. and asked her whether appellant had abused her. M. "put her head down and started crying." Mother contacted the police immediately.

After Salisbury and Wicomico County law enforcement agencies investigated the matter, they arrested appellant. Appellant waived his Miranda rights and made an inculpatory statement to Detective Daniel Schultz of the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office in which appellant acknowledged that he had sexual contact, including vaginal intercourse, with M. Several portions of this interview were contested at trial, and one of those portions is a subject of this appeal.

During the direct examination of Detective Schultz, parts of the interview he had conducted with appellant were played to the jury. Beforehand, the prosecutor and defense counsel had agreed to certain redactions, which, as pertinent here, included any statements by Detective Schultz in which he vouched for the victim's credibility. The jurors were given transcripts (which had been appropriately redacted), but shortly after playback had commenced, the following comment from Detective Schultz was played for the jury:

"She's a very sexualized older looking girl, you know what I mean? And I can see it as a thing where she was curious and you're the male figure in her life. And she would ask you for advice even, anything along those lines, okay? Now, here, here's the deal. My point in talking to you is, this is your opportunity to tell your part, okay? Because I know, I know by talking to her and how she feels about you, that's she's not lying about all of it, okay?"

(Emphasis added.) The italicized text above was supposed to be redacted. Both parties agreed that it was a statement by Detective Schultz to appellant, in which the detective vouched for the victim's credibility. Appellant moved for a mistrial.

The prosecutor explained that he had given his copy of the transcript to a member of the jury.^[3] Because he didn't have his redacted transcript, he inadvertently played a portion of the recording he did not intend to play. The State recommended a curative instruction. The court agreed that the recording...