Santana v. State

1

ZANEL SANTANA, v. STATE OF MARYLAND,

No. 1146-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

January 22, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 121088001

Arthur, Leahy, Meredith, Timothy E. (Senior Judge, specially assigned) JJ.

OPINION

Leahy J.

INTRODUCTION

In June 2019, correctional officer Zanel Santana ("Appellant" or "Mr. Santana") was on duty at the Baltimore Central Booking &Intake Center ("BCBIC") when Ms. Amber Canter refused to return to her cell. An altercation ensued, and afterward Appellant-as shown by security footage-dropped Canter's limp body to the ground, face first, after he dragged her toward her cell, causing her injury. Subsequently, Appellant falsely reported that Canter "dropped h[er] legs and fell by throwing h[er] body to the [f]loor."

For this and related conduct, Appellant was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with first-degree assault and two counts of misconduct in office-one count arising from the assault; and another count arising from Appellant's concealment of certain alleged facts, including the assault, in his written report. Following a bench trial, the judge convicted Appellant of second-degree assault, rather than first-degree assault as he was charged. Appellant was also convicted under both counts for misconduct in office.

On appeal, Appellant presents three questions for review, which we re-order here:

I. "Was Mr. Santana improperly convicted of assault in the second degree?"

II. "Did the prosecution's proof fall short of establishing Mr. Santana's identity?"

III. "Was the evidence legally insufficient to sustain the convictions?"

First, we hold that Appellant was properly convicted of assault in the second-degree despite the fact that the indictment did not expressly charge him with second-degree assault because, by statute "[a] charge of assault in the first degree also charges a defendant with assault in the second degree." Maryland Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), Criminal Law Article ("CL") § 3-206(c).

Second, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to prove Appellant's criminal agency beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, the security footage admitted into evidence at trial clearly showed Appellant's face and, during the trial, the judge-sitting as the finder of fact-had ample opportunity to compare Appellant's face (as he sat in the courtroom) to the security footage.

Third, we hold that the evidence at trial-most importantly including the security footage and Appellant's Use of Force Report-was sufficient for the judge to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant was guilty of second-degree assault and the misconduct in office charges.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2021, the State indicted Appellant in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for events that occurred "on or about June 14, 2019[.]" The indictment charged him with three counts, including a single count of assault in the first degree, and two counts of misconduct in office.

According to the indictment, on June 14, 2019, Appellant was "on duty" as a correctional officer within the Division of Pretrial Detention for the Department of Public Safety &amp Correctional Services ("DPSCS") at the BCBIC. Appellant responded to an incident involving "detainee Amber Canter"; specifically, another officer had "asked" Ms. Canter to "return to the housing unit" several times, but she "refused."

The indictment stated that Appellant and others "attempted to encourage" Ms. Canter to return to her housing unit but, when that failed, Appellant assaulted Ms. Canter by, among other things, using his arms to grab Canter "around [her] neck, placing [her] in an unauthorized and illegal 'choke hold.'" Ms. Canter "appeared to lose consciousness" within approximately "seven seconds after being placed in the chokehold[.]" Despite this, Appellant continued the chokehold and "drag[ged]" Ms. Canter forward. After dragging Ms. Canter for several steps, Appellant "let[] go of an unconscious Canter completely, causing Canter to hit the concrete floor directly with [her] face." After dropping Ms. Canter, Appellant and another officer "collectively drag[ged]" Ms. Canter, who was still unconscious, to her individual housing unit.

According to the indictment, Appellant and other officers who took part in the incident each submitted signed "DPSCS official Use of Force reports" (hereinafter "Use of Force Report(s)") that "conceal[ed]" use of the chokehold and the fact that Ms. Canter became unconscious. The indictment alleged that Appellant "used unauthorized and excessive force" against Ms. Canter, and that Appellant "unjustifiably committed an illegal assault" of Ms. Canter.

Based on these alleged facts, the indictment charged Appellant with first-degree assault ("Count 1") and misconduct in office charge ("Count 2") arising from his contact with Ms. Canter on June 14, 2019. The second misconduct in office charge ("Count 3") was based on Appellant's alleged concealment of key details in the Use of Force Report.^[1]Appellant was arrested and pleaded not guilty to the charges in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

On March 16, 2022, the parties appeared in the circuit court and, among other things, Appellant elected to proceed via a bench trial,^[2] which commenced the following day. Appellant was tried over four days alongside two co-defendants-Monyette Washington ("Co-defendant Washington") and Uchenna Okeke ("Co-defendant Okeke")-each accused of participating in the events of June 14, 2019.

The State called three witnesses during its case in chief: Ms. Canter, Corrections Officer Captain Michael Ennis, and Lieutenant T. Echaunda Fleming.

The first witness, Ms. Canter, testified to events leading up to the assault on June 14, and the challenges she faced as a transgender and gay woman incarcerated in a facility for individuals of the male sex.^[3],[4]

In the months leading up to the assault, Ms. Canter testified that she was "working with" the "Intelligence Department at BCBIC" to "build a case against Officer Santana" in "reference to Santana bringing in cell phone[s] and drugs" and "tobacco" to inmates, including to one inmate who "slept right across the hall" from Ms. Canter. At some point, Appellant learned that Ms. Canter was engaged in this activity, and in May 2019 he refused to let her "out for [her] rec" because she had "been snitching" to "Intel[,]" and told other inmates that Ms. Canter was working for the Intelligence Department. Ms. Canter reported this to the "Department of Public Safety" and, as a result, she was moved to a different "tier" that was "r[un] by" Co-defendant Okeke. Ms. Canter did not have any further interaction with Appellant until a "month" later, on June 14, 2019.

On June 14, "transportation officers" took Ms. Canter from the "MRDCC . . . back to BCBIC[,]" where her cell was located. At some point, Officer Claudia Vincent told her that she would not receive the hour of "out of cell exercise" that Ms. Canter understood she was entitled to.^[5] This upset Ms. Canter and, to bring attention to the matter and attempt to speak to a supervisor, she refused to leave a "[s]ally port"^[6] that led back to her cell.

Ms. Canter deliberately disobeyed several orders to return to her cell, including from Officer Vincent and Co-Defendant Washington, stating that she would not go into her cell. Ms. Canter wished to speak to a "supervisor" to obtain her recreation time. She testified that she told Co-Defendant Washington to "spray" her with "mace" because this would constitute a "use of force" that would enable her to "see a supervisor[.]"^[7] Instead, Co-Defendant Washington "called for Officer Santana" to "come" to the sally port.

During Ms. Canter's testimony, the State admitted into evidence and played various video clips taken from security cameras in the vicinity of the sally port. Ms. Canter testified, as one clip was playing, that Appellant told Co-Defendant Sergeant Washington, "fuck this faggot, let's spray him and take him to his cell, we don't have time for this[.]"

When officers entered the sally port, Ms. Canter claimed, she tried to "[de-]escalate the situation[,]" including by "lower[ing]" her voice. She "proceeded to sit on the ground" after officers "put their hands on" her. She "sat on the ground Indian style with [her] hands under [her] butt" to demonstrate that she was not "combative" and did not "pose any type of threat" to the facility's staff.^[8] As she "was sitting on the ground[,]" Appellant put "his foot in the lower part of [her] back kicking^[9] [her] while he was asking Sergeant Washington why [do] you guys keep catering to this fucking faggot." In response, Ms. Canter "told [Appellant] please get his hands off of me, I feel unsafe"; she also "kept asking Sergeant Washington to please call for a supervisor[.]" Appellant tried to "lift" Ms. Canter but she "was too heavy for him[.]" Shortly thereafter, while Ms. Canter was still "sitting down[,]" Appellant placed himself "behind [Ms. Canter] on one knee" and "put [her] in a chokehold" with the "elbow part" of his "right arm" around her "neck area"; he "squeezed to where [she] could not breathe." According to Ms. Canter, Appellant also said to Co-Defendant Washington, "bitch, you can't control this situation, do your job or I'm going to do it for you[.]"

Ms Canter "could not breathe" and "couldn't talk," and she attempted to break away by "scratching" Appellant's arm and "trying to pull" it away. Co-defendant Okeke "yanked" her "arm away . . . and held it." Ms. Canter testified that she then "lost consciousness and that's all I can remember." When she regained consciousness, according to Ms. Canter, she was "a little dizzy," her "head hurt extremely,...