Lewis v. State

318 A.3d 39

262 Md.App. 251

Cameron Darnell LEWIS

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 28, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland.

June 27, 2024

Circuit Court for Kent County, Case No.: C-14-CR-21-000024, Harris P. Murphy, Judge

Argued by Jeffrey M. Ross, Asst. Public Defender (Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Virginia S. Hovermill, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.

Argued before: Arthur, Friedman, Patrick L. Woodward (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.^*

Woodward, J.

Cameron Darnell Lewis, appellant, was arrested on January 29, 2021, and charged with multiple offenses, including possession of fentanyl and cocaine with the intent to distribute, altering physical evidence, and attempting to elude uniformed police by failing to stop. Later, appellant was indicted on twenty-two counts. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Kent County on November 29 and 30, 2021, appellant was convicted on all of the eighteen counts that were submitted to the jury.¹ The court sentenced appellant to a total term of forty-one years’ imprisonment, with all but ten years suspended, and supervised probation for a period of five years upon release.

Appellant presents four questions for our review on appeal, which we have rephrased slightly:²

1. Did the court err in accepting the jury’s verdict?

2. Did the court abuse its discretion by declining to ask defense counsel’s requested voir dire question?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on accomplice liability?

4. Did the court abuse its discretion in accepting a State’s witness as an expert in "the fields of slang or street terminologies, controlled dangerous substances and street value of controlled dangerous substances"?

For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2021, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Deputy David Nolan of the Kent County Sheriff’s Office was on routine patrol in the area of Routes 20 and 21 near Chestertown, Kent County, Maryland. Deputy Nolan was parked at an abandoned store when he was approached by a person who was concerned about a vehicle traveling on Route 20 because the person could smell marijuana coming from the vehicle. The person advised Deputy Nolan that the vehicle was a light blue Honda car with a Delaware license plate traveling east on Route 20 toward Chestertown.

Deputy Nolan proceeded in the direction of the vehicle and found a matching vehicle within minutes. Deputy Nolan conducted a registration check of the vehicle, which showed that the license plate was registered to a Chevy Cavalier. Deputy Nolan then conducted a traffic stop, and the vehicle pulled over. As Deputy Nolan exited his patrol car and got about halfway to the stopped vehicle, the vehicle fled from the stop location.

Deputy Nolan ran back to his patrol car and radioed other officers that the vehicle was fleeing the scene. As Deputy Nolan engaged in pursuit, he observed a bag fly out of the vehicle. The bag "looked like a sandwich bag," appeared to have some weight to it, and had "something lightly colored in it." Upon later review of the police car’s video camera, the bag flew out of the passenger window. Deputy Nolan radioed the location of the bag, and Lieutenant Harry Kettner of the Sheriff’s Office responded to that area. Ultimately, Deputy Nolan stopped the vehicle and identified appellant as the driver. Another person was in the vehicle, and he was later identified as Damontrall Miles.

Appellant was searched, and Deputy Nolan retrieved money from appellant’s pants pocket totaling $403.00. The vehicle was searched, and a digital scale with white residue on it was recovered in the open center console of the vehicle in front of the automatic shifter, as well as an iPhone, two Alcatel flip phones, and an eTalk flip phone. No contraband was found on either appellant or Miles.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Kettner went to the described location and observed capsules on the shoulder of the road that had an off-white powder type substance inside. Lieutenant Kettner, using gloves, put the capsules in an evidence envelope. Lieutenant Kettner also observed two clear plastic bags on the shoulder of the road that contained a white powder substance. Lieutenant Kettner placed the bags in the same envelope as the capsules. Lieutenant Kettner then went to the scene of the stop with the suspected controlled dangerous substances and gave them to Deputy Nolan.

Appellant was arrested and subsequently indicted on twenty-two counts, eighteen of which were submitted to the jury: Counts 2. Possession with Intent to Distribute of Narcotic Fentanyl; 4. Possession with Intent to Distribute of Narcotic Crack Cocaine; 5. Possession with Intent to Distribute of Narcotic Powder Cocaine; 6. Altering Physical Evidence in Criminal Proceeding; 8. Possession of Fentanyl; 9. Possession of Crack Cocaine; 10. Possession of Powder Cocaine; 11. Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance ("CDS") Paraphernalia (Clear Capsules); 12. Possession of CDS Paraphernalia (Clear Plastic Bags); 13. Displaying Registration Plates Issued for Other Vehicle; 14. Operating an Unregistered Motor Vehicle on Highway; 16. Speeding; 17. Negligent Driving; 18. Reckless Driving; 19. Failure to Drive Right of Center; 20. Attempting to Elude Uniformed Police by Failing to Stop; 21. Eluding an Official Police Vehicle by Failing to Stop; and 22. Driving without Current Tags.

After a trial on November 29 and 30, 2021, the jury found appellant guilty on all 18 counts. On February 11, 2022, the court sentenced appellant to a total term of forty-one years’ imprisonment, with all but ten years suspended, and supervised probation for a period of five years upon release. On March 4, 2022, appellant filed his notice of appeal. We shall provide additional facts as necessary for the resolution of the questions presented.

DISCUSSION

I. Rendition of the Jury’s Verdict

A. Facts

On November 30, 2021, the trial court received the jury’s verdict in open court. The verdict sheet, which had been submitted by defense counsel,³ set forth at the beginning:

JURY VERDICT SHEET

(1) Do you find that the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt as to:

COUNT TWO: CDS POSSESSION WITH THE INTENT TO DIST. NARC. FENTYL
____YES	____NO
COUNT FOUR: CDS POSSESSION WITH THE INTENT TO DIST. NARC. CRACK COCAINE
____YES	____NO

The verdict sheet then listed all of the remaining counts submitted to the jury in the same manner. On the returned verdict sheet, the jury indicated "yes" as to each of the counts. The announcement of the verdict went as follows:

THE COURT: It is my understanding that you all have a verdict; is that correct?

(Choras of yeses.)

THE COURT: All right. Madam Clerk, please take the verdict.

THE CLERK: Members of the jury, are you agreed upon your verdict?

(Choras of yes, we have.)

THE CLERK: Who shall say for you? (Chorus of Madam Foreperson.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a teacher in this courtroom.

THE CLERK: Members of the jury, look upon the Defendant at the bar, what say you as to Count II, CDS Possession with the Intent to Distribute Narcotic Fentanyl.

MADAM FOREPERSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Guilty or not guilty. Does it say yes? Okay. So I don’t have a copy in front of me. My fault. Go ahead.

THE CLERK: Count IV, CDS Possession with the Intent to Distribute Narcotic Crack Cocaine.

MADAM FOREPERSON: Yes.

All eighteen counts were announced by the foreperson in the same fashion. The court then proceeded to ask about the polling of the jury:

THE COURT: All right. Does anybody want the jury polled?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, please.

[PROSECUTOR]: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: May we poll the jury, please.

THE CLERK: Seat No. 2, Juror No. 251, is her verdict your verdict?

JUROR NO. 251: Yes.

Each juror, other than the foreperson, was polled in the same manner, with the same response of "yes." The court then told the clerk to proceed with the hearkening of the verdict:

THE COURT: You may harken the verdict, please.

THE CLERK: Members of the jury, harken unto your verdict as the Court has recorded it. Your Foreman has said that Cameron Lewis –

THE COURT: Said that you find that the State has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt as to, that’s why I was confused.

THE CLERK: Count II, CDS Possession with the Intent to Distribute Narcotic Fentanyl, yes.

The clerk hearkened the verdict using the same form for each count, asking the jury at the end whether the verdict was correct, and the jury collectively affirmed the verdict. No objection was made by the defendant during the announcement of the verdict, the polling of the jury, or the hearkening of the verdict.

B. Standard of Review

[1] Our review of the rendition of a "jury verdict in a criminal case is ‘de novo, considering the totality of the circumstances.’ " Jones v. State, 173 Md. App. 430, 451, 920 A.2d 1 (2007) (quoting Caldwell v. State, 164 Md. App. 612, 643, 884 A.2d 199 (2005)); see also Simms v. State, 240 Md. App. 606, 619, 207 A.3d 661 (2019); Teixeira v. State, 213 Md. App. 664, 668, 75 A.3d 371 (2013).

C. The Law

Under Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, every person has a right "to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty." Md. Const. Decl. of Rts. art. 21. The procedure for returning a verdict in a criminal trial in Maryland is governed by Maryland Rule 4327. Section (a) of the rule provides that "[t]he verdict of a jury shall be unanimous and shall be returned in open court." Md. Rule 4-327(a). Further, on the request of either party or on the court’s own initiative, "the jury shall be polled after it has returned a verdict and before it is discharged. If the sworn jurors do not unanimously concur in the verdict, the court may direct the jury to retire for further deliberation, or may discharge the jury if satisfied...