Moody v. State

209 Md.App. 366

59 A.3d 1047

Kimberly Marcia MOODY

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 2018, Sept. Term, 2010.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 23, 2013.

Julia C. Schiller (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Carrie J. Williams (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: ZARNOCH, GRAEFF, and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

GRAEFF, J.

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Kimberly Moody, appellant, was convicted of first degree assault and conspiracy to commit first degree assault stemming from a fight that took place outside of Coconuts Café (“Coconuts”), a nightclub.¹ Appellant was sentenced to twenty years, with all but ten years suspended, for the assault, and a concurrent twenty years, with all but ten suspended, for the conspiracy conviction.

On appeal, appellant presents seven questions, which we have reordered and revised as follows:

1. Did the circuit court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the charges for violation of the statutory 180–day deadline for trying criminal cases?

[209 Md.App. 371]2. Did the circuit court err in denying appellant's motion to suppress statements she made, without the benefit of Miranda warnings, to Baltimore City homicide detectives on March 20, 2009?

3. Was the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault?

4. Did the trial court err in admitting “other crimes” evidence?

5. Did the trial court err in deviating from pattern jury instructions on aiding and abetting?

6. Did the trial court err in granting the State's motion in limine to exclude extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a prosecution witness?

7. Did the trial court err in sua sponte supplying the jury with copies of written instructions on aiding and abetting and accessory after the fact?

As explained below, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to suppress appellant's March 20, 2009, statements to police because the statements were obtained during custodial interrogation, but no Miranda² warnings were given. Because we hold that the circuit court properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss, and because the State presented sufficient evidence to convict appellant of both the assault and the conspiracy charges, we shall remand for retrial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant's convictions stem from her role in the March 7, 2009, assault of three women in the parking lot of Coconuts Café after an altercation involving her friend, Ms. Sharone Newton. The State's theory was that, after the altercation inside the club, Ms. Newton left the club, but appellant subsequently drove her back to the club at closing time. It presented evidence that, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Ms. Newton attacked Ms. Sheray Belt and Ms. Brendi Simms with a metal pipe. Ms. Newton then retrieved a gun from her vehicle and fired shots. Ms. Belt was shot in the head, Ms. Simms was shot in the chest, and Ms. Sctario Edwards, a bystander, was shot and killed. During these crimes, appellant watched and maneuvered the vehicle for their getaway. When Ms. Newton ran out of bullets, she returned to the vehicle, and appellant drove away.

After interviewing witnesses at the club and reviewing surveillance video of the area during the altercation, Baltimore City investigators identified Ms. Newton as the suspected shooter. They obtained an arrest warrant for Ms. Newton and a search and seizure warrant for her home in Randallstown.

On March 20, 2009, the police went to Ms. Newton's residence to execute both warrants. When Ms. Newton arrived with appellant at the residence, the police asked them to exit the vehicle and sit on the curb, where they were handcuffed. Appellant and Ms. Newton subsequently were transported in separate police vehicles to police headquarters in Baltimore City. Upon arrival, appellant was released from her handcuffs and placed into a locked holding room. Detectives Ryan Felker and Vernon Parker then took her to an interview room and, without giving her Miranda warnings, questioned her about the shootings.

On June 1, 2009, based on further investigation, appellant was arrested. As indicated, she ultimately was convicted of first degree assault and conspiracy to commit first degree assault.

DISCUSSION

I.Delay in Trial Date

Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the charges against her. Specifically, she argues that the State violated Md.Code (2009 Supp.) § 6–103(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article and Md. Rule 4–271(a), which require the State to bring a defendant to trial within 180 days after the earlier of a defendant's first appearance in circuit court or the appearance of defense counsel.

The State does not disagree that the trial occurred beyond this date. It points out, however, that the administrative judge or that judge's designee may grant a change of trial date beyond the 180–day period “for good cause shown,” which it contends was shown here. Moreover, the State asserts, dismissal of the charges is inappropriate where, as here, the defense consents to a trial date in violation of the 180–day deadline.

In State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 318, 403 A.2d 356 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that, unless there is good cause for postponing the trial date beyond the 180–day period (the “Hicks deadline”), the court must dismiss the charges. The critical postponement is the one that extends the trial date beyond the Hicks deadline. State v. Brown, 355 Md. 89, 108–09, 733 A.2d 1044 (1999).

Here, appellant's attorney entered his appearance on June 30, 2009. Consequently, the 180–day Hicks deadline was December 28, 2009.

On October 14, 2009, the case was postponed to January 14, 2010, making that the critical postponement for purposes of Hicks. On that date, the prosecutor advised the court that the DNA evidence was not yet available, and she and defense counsel were requesting a postponement. The court asked defense counsel whether he wanted to be heard, and counsel responded: “Not at all.” Speaking directly to appellant, the court then explained that if the case was postponed, defense counsel would let her know of the new date. When asked if that was acceptable, appellant replied: “It's acceptable.”

Although we do not have the transcript of the remainder of the proceeding, the State supplemented the record with a video recording of the proceedings. The recording shows that appellant's case was recalled at 3:16 p.m. to complete the postponement request. The administrative judge stated that the new trial date would “take us past Hicks,” but he ruled that “DNA has such probative value, for conviction and acquittal,” that it was “appropriate to go past Hicks.” Accordingly, the court found good cause for both the postponement and to exceed the Hicks date. The court stated that it would charge the postponement to both the defense and the State. At no time did defense counsel object to the postponement.

In August 2010, prior to the commencement of trial, the trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss, ruling that there was good cause for the October 14, 2009, postponement that delayed trial until after the Hicks deadline. Appellant maintains that, in so ruling, the trial court abused its discretion. She asserts that there were no facts to support a finding of good cause because the administrative judge did not consider the need for DNA in this case.

Appellate courts “shall not find an absence of good cause unless the defendant meets the burden of demonstrating either a clear abuse of discretion or a lack of good cause as a matter of law.” State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 454, 470 A.2d 1269 (1984). Appellant has not met her burden here.

As indicated, the record reflects that the court determined that the potential importance of DNA evidence, as it pertains to conviction or acquittal, warranted a postponement. When the court made this observation, defense counsel never objected or suggested that this DNA evidence was not important. There clearly was a finding of good cause for a postponement, and this finding was supported by the record.

Moreover, the court specifically asked both appellant and defense counsel to comment on the request for a postponement, and neither voiced any objection. They essentially consented to the October 14 postponement. In Hicks, 285 Md. at 310, 403 A.2d 356, the Court of Appeals stated:

[One] circumstance where it is inappropriate to dismiss the criminal charges is where the defendant, either individually or by his attorney, seeks or expressly consents to a trial date in violation of Rule [4–271(a) (1) ]. It would, in our judgment, be entirely inappropriate for the defendant to gain advantage from a violation of the rule when he was a party to that violation.

Id. at 335, 403 A.2d 356. The circuit court properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss.

II.Motion to Suppress Appellant's March 20, 2009, Statements

Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying her pre-trial motion to suppress the statements she made to Detectives Parker and Felker on March 20, 2009. Specifically, she asserts that she was subjected to custodial interrogation, but the police failed to give her Miranda warnings.

The State disagrees. It argues that appellant was not in Miranda custody when she gave the March 20th statement.

A.Proceedings Below

At the suppression hearing, Detective Felker testified that, on March 20, 2009, he assisted the primary homicide detective assigned to the case, Detective McDermott, with the arrest of Ms. Newton outside her residence. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Detectives Felker and McDermott, along with two other Baltimore City homicide detectives, several uniformed Baltimore County Police officers, and members of the Warrant Apprehension Task...