Case Law Satterfield v. State

Satterfield v. State

Document Cited Authorities (12) Cited in Related

Argued: February 3, 2023

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K-06-004604 Fader C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

OPINION

HOTTEN, J.

The Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statute, Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure ("Crim. Proc.") § 8-201, allows persons convicted of a crime of violence to file a petition: "(1) for DNA testing of scientific identification evidence that the State possesses that is related to the judgment of conviction[]" or "(2) for a search by a law enforcement agency of a law enforcement data base or log for the purpose of identifying the source of physical evidence used for DNA testing." A circuit court is required to order DNA testing of such evidence if two conditions are met. See id. § 8-201(d). First, the petitioner must demonstrate that "a reasonable probability exists that the DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of wrongful conviction or sentencing[.]" Id. § 8-201(d)(1)(i). Second, "the requested DNA test [must] employ[] a method of testing generally accepted within the relevant scientific community." Id. § 8-201(d)(1)(ii). If the circuit court denies the petition, the petitioner can directly appeal to this Court. Id. § 8-201(k)(6).

In this case, Petitioner, John Orlando Satterfield, was convicted of fourteen criminal offenses, including first-degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 150 years. Pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 8-201(b)(1), Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction DNA Testing (the "Petition"). The Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied the Petition without a hearing or an explanation. On appeal, Petitioner seeks our review of the circuit court's denial of his Petition, as well as the circuit court's decision not to conduct a hearing or allow the opportunity to reply to the State's answer to his Petition. For the reasons outlined below, we shall affirm the circuit court's denial.

Facts and Procedural Background
Background

The testimony at trial established the following. On September 8, 2006, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Randy Hudson, also known as "Scooby," drove to Dundalk located in Baltimore County to pick up his daughter from the home of her grandparents, Anna and Eric Fountain. Mr. Hudson parked behind the house. As Mr. Hudson unlocked the back door to enter the home, he was "approached from behind by someone who grabbed him [around] the throat."

Mr. Hudson testified that the man had "big arms[,]" but was unable to describe him because the man had "a shirt pulled over his face." The man pushed Mr. Hudson into a nearby alley where two other men appeared. Mr. Hudson testified that the men "were wearing Yankees baseball caps[]" and were armed. The men demanded money from Mr. Hudson. According to Mr. Hudson, the men "beat him, [] took $3,000" from him, and asked for "the rest" of his money.

Ms. Fountain testified that she and her granddaughter were sleeping in the living room when a noise inside the house awakened her. According to Petitioner's description of Ms. Fountain's trial testimony, two men "burst into her home, neither of whom [were] Petitioner." The men yelled at Ms. Fountain, "pointed a gun at her, told her not to look at them, and took her cell phone." The two men ran up and down her steps a few times until they went back outside. They subsequently returned, "dragg[ing] [Mr. Hudson] into the house, and up the stairs." Ms. Fountain heard gunshots. The two men ran back downstairs and left the home. Ms. Fountain went upstairs and discovered her husband on the floor bleeding, and Mr. Hudson lying on the bed. Ms. Fountain called 911 from Mr. Hudson's cell phone.

Upon arrival, Officer Thomas Wehrle noticed the front door "was slightly ajar." He peered inside to see Ms. Fountain "kneeling down on the floor . . . holding a small child, . . . hysterical and crying." Ms. Fountain directed Officer Wehrle to "hurry up," advising that Mr. Hudson and Mr. Fountain were upstairs. Officer Wehrle found Mr. Hudson lying on the bed, bleeding and "gasping for air." He also found Mr. Fountain on the floor "completely unresponsive" and not "breathing, . . . as if he'd been deceased."

Dr. Carol Allan, an Assistant Medical Examiner for the State, performed the autopsy on Mr. Fountain. Dr. Allan testified that Mr. Fountain "sustained two gunshot wounds to his torso, one near his right shoulder and another to his upper abdomen." Dr. Allan determined that the cause of death was gunshot wounds and that "the manner of death [was] homicide."

Chalene Smith, an informant for the Baltimore City Police Department, contacted the Baltimore City police with information related to the crime. Thereafter, the Baltimore City authorities contacted the Baltimore County authorities, sharing Ms. Smith's information. Detective Craig Schrott, a member of the Homicide Unit of the Baltimore County Police Department, interviewed Ms. Smith in September 2006. Detective Schrott testified that, during the course of the investigation, authorities first identified Darnell Smith as a suspect. Authorities "[t]hen [] were able to identify [Petitioner] and Christian Lee[]" as suspects.

Detective Gary Childs, also a member of the Homicide Unit, interviewed another witness to the crime, Tori Kucz. Ms. Kucz testified that, on the evening in question, she and Petitioner were running errands. Ms. Kucz and Petitioner "drove around" until they picked up Mr. Smith, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Smith. Ms. Kucz overheard in conversation that Petitioner "didn't like [Mr. Hudson][.]" Ms. Kucz testified that she "knew that we were goin' to do somethin' that shouldn't be happenin'[.] I knew that we were goin' to do somethin' that wasn't right." She testified that they drove to a "liquor store[,]" smoked marijuana, and drove to the Dundalk area near Ms. Fountain's home. According to Ms. Kucz, Petitioner told her to park the car in the alley on Ms. Fountain's street. The group subsequently "walked to a park," where they sat and drank. A few hours later, Petitioner, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lee told Ms. Kucz and Ms. Smith "to stay there[]" and "that they were gonna be back[.]" Ms. Kucz testified that the men left, "came back shortly thereafter[,]" and "left again."

Ms. Kucz testified that she later had to relieve herself, prompting her and Ms. Smith to walk up the street and "around to the back alley, where [her] car was parked." Ms. Smith "stopped and went to the bathroom first, then further down the alley by [her] car [Ms. Kucz] stopped and" relieved herself. Ms. Kucz testified that, as she was "goin' to the bathroom in the alley," Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith "come runnin' down the alley," screaming to "start the car[.]" According to Ms. Kucz, Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith "were yelling[]" and "anxious or . . . afraid or something." Ms. Kucz started the car, "made a left out of the alley," and a few moments later, picked up Petitioner on the "side of the street[.]" Ms. Kucz testified that, "[w]hen [Petitioner] got in the car, he was fussin' at me because I didn't answer my cell phone[]" and that he yelled at Mr. Smith and Mr. Lee that "nobody was supposed to get shot. Nobody was supposed -- this wasn't supposed to happen." Ms. Kucz explained that:

[Mr. Lee] . . . was saying he don't know what happened. The man came at him and he just pulled the trigger, that he didn't mean to do it. He kept sayin' that he shot the man, he think he dead. I think I [killed] him, yo. You know that color white? He was that color white they get before they die.... [T]his was not supposed to happen, that nobody was supposed to get hurt or die.

The police later searched Mr. Smith's home and uncovered "a gun, ammunition, and a sweatshirt." It was determined that the gun and ammunition recovered were used to shoot and kill Mr. Fountain. Authorities also recovered a cigarette butt from the alley that was "laying on the ground near the fence opening" behind the Fountains' house. A Forensic Technician with the Baltimore County Police Department testified that the cigarette butt was recovered with "other trash and debris in the alley[]" and "was neither wet, dirty[,] or damaged." The DNA on the cigarette butt was later determined to be that of a female, thereby excluding Petitioner as a source of DNA. Detective Michael Forsyth also testified that, on the evening in question, a cell tower "[l]ess than a mile[]" from Ms. Fountain's home intercepted a call from a cell phone associated with Petitioner. Petitioner's DNA was also collected from a hat recovered in the backyard of the Fountains' home. Petitioner was subsequently arrested on September 29, 2006.

Legal Proceedings

On February 7, 2008, Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of fourteen counts, including first-degree murder, armed robbery, and first-degree assault. On March 19, the circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life plus 150 years. That same day, Petitioner noted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland.[1] On April 15, 2010, the Appellate Court affirmed the convictions.

On January 7, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. See Crim. Proc. §§ 7-101-109. The circuit court conducted a post-conviction hearing on September 24. On October 27, by way of written memorandum and order, the circuit court denied the petition. The circuit court explained that:

Along with the testimony of the firearms expert, and Ms. Kucz's testimony, the [S]tate also relied on DNA evidence and cell phone records to tie the three co-defendants to the crime. Ultimately this evidence led to the conviction of Pe
...

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