Johnson v. State

1

DEON LENNARD JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 511-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 22, 2023

UNREPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CR-19-000855

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

OPINION

Ripken, J.

After a mistrial and a retrial, a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County found Deon Lennard Johnson ("Appellant"), guilty of attempted second-degree murder, possession of burglar's tools, violation of a peace order, and two counts of first-degree assault. The court sentenced Appellant to 55 years of incarceration with all but 40 years suspended and five years of supervised probation. On appeal, Appellant presents the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased:^[1]

I. Did the court err in finding Appellant competent to stand trial?

II. Did the court err in employing heightened security measures at trial?

III. Did the court err in overruling Appellant's hearsay objection?

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged and convicted of charges related to stabbing his exgirlfriend, Kyverra Butler ("K. Butler"), and her mother, Gloria Butler ("G. Butler"), in October of 2019. K. Butler and Appellant began dating when they were in high school, and later lived together in an apartment in Waldorf. K. Butler became pregnant with their child in the summer of 2018. K. Butler and Appellant stopped dating in September 2018. The baby was born pre-maturely in December 2018 and, sadly, survived only two days.

Although they were no longer dating each other, Appellant and K. Butler remained in contact until April 2019. Appellant then "tried to contact [K. Butler] several times" by texting her from "other people's numbers because [she] had his number blocked." K. Butler's mother, G. Butler, subsequently obtained a peace order in May 2019 that prohibited Appellant from contacting G. Butler as well as prohibiting Appellant from entering the Butlers' residence.

On the morning of October 2, 2019, G. Butler was inside of her home when she saw Appellant climbing through a window into the house. Appellant was wearing a "gas mask[,]" "a black hoodie[,]" "and black pants." G. Butler told Appellant to leave, and then Appellant "came closer to [her.]" Then, G. Butler "remember[ed] being on the floor." She later learned Appellant had stabbed her 15 times: "Seven on my right arm, four in my head, one in my neck, one in my chest, one in my rotator[] cuff and then my wrist was slashed."

K. Butler also testified about the events of that morning. She explained that Appellant "looked at [her], looked at [G. Butler] and then went straight for [G. Butler] and started stabbing [G. Butler]" with a pocketknife. K. Butler then left the house, running outside. Appellant followed K. Butler with a crowbar in his hands, removed his gas mask, kissed her, and told her that G. Butler "was in the way, . . . just let her die." K. Butler was able to covertly call her niece and father so that they could "hear what was going on."

As the sound of sirens approached, Appellant "was still trying to get [K. Butler] to go with him and [K. Butler] kept telling him no[.]" Appellant then "said well if you don't want to go, then . . . I'm going to kill you, too." Appellant then stabbed K. Butler in her head, wrist, neck, shoulder, and back. Appellant ran away as police arrived. That evening, Appellant turned himself in to a police officer in La Plata.

At the scene, the Butler residence, police recovered a crowbar and a backpack containing a gas mask. Police also recovered a cell phone "that was still laying on the steps that led up to the doorway.... And the cell phone was face down and the camera feature was sticking up and you could see where the flashlight feature was still on." Police obtained the subscriber information for that cell phone from Verizon. The cell phone belonged to Appellant. Appellant's DNA profile matched the DNA profile on a sample obtained from the gas mask.

Additional facts will be included as they become relevant to the issues.

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Did Not Err in Determining That Appellant Was Competent to Stand Trial.

Appellant claims that the court erred in finding him competent to stand trial "[b]ecause the evidence demonstrated that [he] lacked a rational understanding of the proceedings and was not able to assist his attorneys[.]" The State argues that competent evidence established "that [Appellant] understood the proceedings and that he could assist in his defense." Thus, according to the State, the court did not commit clear error in finding Appellant competent to stand trial.

A. Background

On November 18, 2019, Appellant's trial attorney filed a "suggestion of incompetency to stand trial[.]" Two days later, the circuit court ordered a "commitment to the Maryland Department of Health for examination as to competency to stand trial[.]"

Pursuant to the court's order, Dr. Teresa Grant ("Dr. Grant") met with Appellant twice at the Charles County Detention Center in December of 2019 and prepared a competency evaluation report that same month.

According to Dr. Grant's report, Appellant graduated from high school in 2013, and he "believe[d] (but appeared unclear) that a few of his classes were special education." He had "sustained employment for the past six years." Appellant "conveyed that he used marijuana on a regular basis since the age of 18[,]" and "[h]e denied a history of using other illicit substances and maladaptive alcohol consumption." He "identified himself as medically stable." Although Appellant "stated that he 'sometimes thinks he hears voices.... a word or something[,]'" and he stated that "he 'believes he can read minds[,]'" Appellant "was unable to provide specific details as it related to his assertion." Moreover, Dr. Grant reviewed multiple phone calls between Appellant and a family member, explaining:

During those calls, [Appellant] was coached to "tell them you can read peoples' minds," discussing his case, how many charges are pending, and the process of how to be sent to a hospital as opposed to serving a sentence[] in a DOC facility. He has also been coached to feign memory deficits as "you don't remember what happened."

Dr. Grant noted that "[t]here was no overt evidence of clinical depression, mania or hypomania, anxiety, overt delusions, hallucinations, suicidal and homicidal ideations and/or intent." Moreover, Appellant's "attention and concentration were unimpaired[,]" and "[h]is insight, memory functioning, and judgment were fair."

Dr. Grant opined that Appellant was competent to stand trial based on the following forensic opinion:

[Appellant] was administered several reliable and validated psychological measures often utilized by forensic evaluators to assess for malingering and feigning. Each measure concluded that the defendant may be malingering psychiatric symptoms and memory deficits. [Appellant] endorsed a marked level of psychiatric symptoms and memory deficits atypical and not observed in psychiatric populations. Surprisingly, the measures administered to assess his legal knowledge revealed that the [Appellant] possesses sufficient knowledge of the legal system.

After Dr. Grant completed that report, Appellant, through his counsel, entered a plea of not criminally responsible. Defense counsel also wrote to Dr. Grant, expressing concerns about Appellant's competency. More specifically, defense counsel asserted that Appellant could not discuss the facts of the case and that his "demeanor is childlike at times." As for the allegation that Appellant's family was coaching him, defense counsel represented that the family was merely encouraging Appellant to be more forthright with medical professionals about his mental health conditions.

On January 31, 2020, the court issued an order committing Appellant to the Department of Health for an evaluation to be conducted at Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center on competency and criminal responsibility. On March 26, 2020, Dr. Danielle Robinson ("Dr. Robinson") of the Maryland Department of Health wrote to the court and expressed the following diagnostic opinion about Appellant's mental condition: "Malingering Psychotic Symptoms" and "Cannabis Use Disorder," which was "in remission in a structured environment." Dr. Robinson opined that Appellant was "Competent to Stand Trial" and "Criminally Responsible[.]" Dr. Robinson additionally provided the court with a "competency and criminal responsibility evaluation" completed by Dr. Annette Hanson ("Dr. Hanson") and Dr. David Ash ("Dr. Ash"). That report detailed Dr. Hanson and Dr. Ash's three interviews with Appellant, as well as their telephone interviews with K. Butler and one of Appellant's sisters, Gwyn^[2] Johnson ("G. Johnson"). G. Johnson told the doctors that Appellant would claim that he could read minds, and "[h]e would stop eating the food she cooked and claimed she poisoned it." In addition, she claimed that Appellant "dug a hole in the shape of a boxing ring in the yard."

K. Butler told the doctors that she broke up with Appellant after he "asked her not to have the baby because he did not want to be a father." When Appellant attempted to attend the delivery of their child in December 2018, K. Butler "did not want him in the room with her[,]" and "[s]ecurity came and escorted him off the property." After G. Butler obtained a peace order against Appellant, he "came to the house twice, violating the order."

During Dr. Hanson and Dr. Ash's interview of Appellant, he said that he "hope[d]" that he did not have a mental illness. According to the report, Appellant was unaware of the consequences of "a successful [not criminally responsible] defense." "He...