Case Law Jones v. State

Jones v. State

Document Cited Authorities (16) Cited in Related

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 117108001

UNREPORTED

Arthur, Reed, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Reed, 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.

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Richard Jones ("Appellant") was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and possession of a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a disqualifying crime. The court sentenced him to life for the first-degree murder conviction, a consecutive term of 20 years for use of a firearm in a crime of violence, and a consecutive term of 12 years, the first five without the possibility of parole, for the possession of a regulated firearm conviction. This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration:

I. Did the trial court err in denying his supplemental motion for new trial without a hearing?
II. Did the trial court err in allowing a witness for the State to testify to specific instances of witness intimidation on redirect examination?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This appeal arises from the shooting death of Lawrence Lee Jones ("Jones"), who was also known as "Rabbit." On the night of February 3, 2017, Baltimore City Police Officer Stephen Tandy ("Officer Tandy") responded to a call for a shooting in the 2600 block of Ulman Avenue and Park Heights Avenue. When he arrived, he found Jones lying on the ground and unresponsive. Medics arrived and transported Jones to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. An autopsy was performed, and an assistant medical examiner determined that the cause of Jones's death was multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death was homicide.

A number of items were found at the crime scene, including a soda can with a false top that contained 11 blue baggies filled with a suspected controlled dangerous substance, Jones's wallet, an identification card, a cell phone, clothing, 16 nine-millimeter shell casings, and three bullet fragments. No firearm was recovered at or near the scene of the shooting.

The shooting was captured on surveillance video cameras in the area. On February 16, 2017, Baltimore City Police Detective Stephen Henson ("Detective Henson") recovered surveillance video from a food market located at 3601 Park Heights Avenue. According to Detective Henson, nine cameras were associated with the video recording system. He extracted the video from the surveillance system and saved it on a flash drive. The video recordings were admitted in evidence.

The police investigation revealed that the gun shots were fired from the front porch of a house located at 2606 Ulman Avenue. Shell casings found on and near the steps at the location were consistent with the nine-millimeter shell casings recovered from the place where Jones's body was found. Baltimore City Police Detective Joseph Brown, Jr. ("Detective Brown"), the primary detective on the case, testified that typically, shell cases are ejected from the top of semi-automatic weapons about three to seven feet to the right, depending on how the shooter is moving. The gun that fired the bullets found near the market and near 2606 Ulman Avenue was recovered in Baltimore County in April 2017.

Police interviewed Oliver Alexander ("Alexander"), who was also known as "Buster," Kaii Myles ("Myles")1, and Darrell Owens ("Owens"). Alexander lived in the area of Ulman and Park Heights Avenues. At the time of the shooting, he was a drug addict who had used heroin on a daily basis for about thirty-six years. He made money to support his drug habit by working as a lookout for Appellant, Myles, and Owens in the area of Ulman and Park Heights Avenues. According to Alexander, Appellant and Owens looked alike and it was easy to mix up the two men. On the evening of the shooting, Alexander observed Appellant, Myles, and Owens in the area of Ulman and Park Heights Avenues, as well as Jones with a baton in his hand. He did not see Myles, Owens, Jones, or Appellant with firearms. As he was walking down Park Heights Avenue to go home for the evening, Alexander heard seven or eight gun shots. He picked up his pace, continued down Park Heights Avenue, and went to his house on the corner of Park Heights Avenue and Reisterstown Road. Later, when he saw the police arrive, he returned to the area to see what had happened. On the way there, Alexander ran into Appellant by a sub shop at the corner of Park Heights Avenue and Reisterstown Road. Appellant asked, "what the hell happened?" Alexander responded "something happened up top. They was up there shooting guns and shit." The two men walked back to the food market. The police went to Alexander's home about a week after the shooting and had him review video recordings.

Myles testified that he moved to 2606 Ulman Avenue about three to four months before the shooting. He stated that he knew Appellant and Jones and explained that he had known Jones "[s]ince [he] was little," but did not know the full name of either Appellant or Jones. On the day of the shooting, Myles stated that he was selling drugs for Appellant. At the time of the shooting, Myles was on his front porch and Appellant was on the front porch of the house next door, about four to five feet away from Myles. Jones was walking toward the food market when Myles heard gun shots. In a statement to the police, Myles acknowledged that he saw Appellant leave the front porch and shoot at Jones. After hearing the gun shots, Myles took off running. He continued to run to Cottage Avenue, where he stopped, turned around, and saw Appellant. Myles thought that Appellant was going to "hit [him] next," but Appellant said he "was good," so Myles kept running. Myles noted that he "cut off from" Appellant and ran through some woods at "the bottom" of Cottage Avenue.

A day or two after the shooting, police went to Myles's house and brought him in to the police station for questioning. Myles told police that at some time prior to the shooting, there had been a dispute between Appellant and Jones regarding Jones' decision to use blue baggies to package his drugs.

Appellant, who was also known as "Squeaky,"2 denied shooting Jones and testified on his own behalf. Appellant explained that he was married to Jones's sister, had known Jones for more than 20 years, and was close to him. In February 2017, Appellant lived onWabash Avenue and sold drugs in the area of Ulman and Park Heights Avenues to make money. Jones, Myles, Owens, Jones's brother, and someone named Jerome also sold drugs in that area. Appellant testified that Alexander was a "lookout." Appellant mentioned that Jones also sold drugs in other areas, but he did not.

The shooting occurred near a food market, which contained a liquor store. Appellant testified that he frequently went in the market and was aware that there were surveillance cameras there and at a nearby building used by a charitable organization that he referred to as "the Green Doors." Appellant acknowledged that he and Jones had had a "conversation about the different color of bags" used to package their drugs, but it "was resolved." According to Appellant, "[i]t wasn't as big as how everybody making it to be and we continued on. Sometimes [Jones] looked out for me. Sometimes I looked out for him. It wasn't no big deal." At the time of the shooting, Appellant packaged the drugs he sold in clear baggies.

On February 3, 2017, Appellant testified that he was out on the street most of the day, but he went "back and forth" to the home of his mother's ex-boyfriend at 3443 Park Heights Avenue, because his mother was there visiting. He returned to the area in the evening to see someone who wanted to make a drug purchase and to purchase a few items from the market. He stated that he saw Jones, Myles, and Owens. According to Appellant, he and Owens are similar in appearance. Owens had the same build, size, complexion, and facial hair. On the day of the shooting, Owens wore the same clothes as Appellant, specifically a "bubble coat," blue pants, a hoodie, and black shoes.

Appellant testified that he did not see the shooting, but as he was walking on Park Heights Avenue near Cottage Avenue, he heard "a lot" of gun shots. Appellant stated that he ran away and continued running until he saw Alexander at a sub shop at "the bottom" of Park Heights Avenue, "[i]n between Park Heights and Reisterstown." Later that night, after he heard who had been shot, Appellant returned to the market. He stated that he did not contact the police because he did not see anything. Appellant denied having had an argument with anyone, but he claimed that Jones had had a dispute with "a guy on Hillsdale and Norfolk" about "serving somebody on that side[.]"

After Jones died, Appellant testified that he provided financial assistance to his family. Appellant did not see Myles or speak with him after Jones was killed. Appellant denied having anything to do with threats against Myles.

The parties stipulated that Appellant was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm, but appellant denied that he was in possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting.

We shall include additional facts as necessary in our discussion of the issues presented.

DISCUSSION
I. Motion and Supplemental Motion for New Trial
A. Appellant's Contentions

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his supplemental motion for new trial without a hearing. In considering this issue, it is helpful to review the procedural background pertaining to the supplemental motion for new trial.

The jury rendered its...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex