Simms v. State

1

TIGER JAMES SIMMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1850-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 5, 2022

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CT210111X

Kehoe Zic, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Kehoe J.

This case arises from a criminal conviction from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Tiger James Simms was charged with illegal possession of a regulated firearm, possession of a regulated firearm under the age of twenty-one, possession of a loaded handgun in vehicle, carrying or transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and illegal possession of ammunition. Prior to trial, the circuit court denied Mr. Simms's motion to suppress. Mr. Simms was convicted by a jury on all counts, except for firearm possession by a minor. The trial court sentenced Mr. Simms to five years of incarceration and suspended all but the sixty-five days that he had already served, to be followed by three years of probation. He presents three issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial court err in denying Mr. Simms's motion to suppress?

2. Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion in admitting the handgun and documentation pertaining to the chain of custody of the gun and in refusing to declare a mistrial?

3. Is the evidence insufficient to sustain Mr. Simms's convictions?

We hold that the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Simms's motion to suppress and did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and in denying Mr. Simms's motion for a mistrial. Finally, we decline to rule on whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Mr. Simms's convictions because the claim was not preserved.

In their briefs, the parties refer to "marijuana" and "hemp." In this opinion we will use the term "hemp" when talking about cannabis that contains 0.3% or less of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content by dry weight which was, and is, legal. Md. Code, Agric. § 14-1202. We will use the term "cannabis" to refer to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% of THC content by dry weight. Md. Code, Crim. Law §5-101. At the time of that operative facts occurred that gave rise to Mr. Simms's conviction, possession of cannabis in small amounts was a civil, but not a criminal offense. Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94, 116 (2017). When referencing the plant from which both hemp and cannabis are derived, we will use the term cannabis sativa. See Agric. § 14-101(c).

BACKGROUND

At approximately 9:55 p.m. on February 4, 2020, Corporal Stephen Samuel of the Prince George County Police Department conducted a traffic stop of a black Nissan after receiving a notification from his license plate recognition device that the vehicle's registration was suspended. Mr. Simms and two other passengers were in the vehicle. Mr. Simms, who was driving the vehicle, pulled over. Once the automobile came to a halt, the two passengers immediately got out and ran to a nearby home. Corporal Samuel did not believe he had any "exigency" to follow the passengers, and instead approached the vehicle. During the suppression hearing, Corporal Samuel testified that as he approached the vehicle, he noted the odor of cannabis emanating from it. Corporal Samuel asked Mr. Simms for his license and registration. Upon this request, Corporal Samuel witnessed "a lot of movement in the vehicle" including Mr. Simms reaching towards the passenger's seat but, Mr. Simms never produced his license or registration. Corporal Samuel went to his patrol vehicle to call for back-up to assist with the stop. The back-up arrived within a few minutes, and Corporal Samuel re-approached the vehicle. At this time, Corporal Samuel asked Mr. Simms to exit the vehicle so he could conduct a search of the Nissan. Mr. Simms complied. During the search, Corporal Samuel recovered a loaded Glock 22 .40 caliber handgun from the passenger-side glove compartment, ammunition and drug paraphernalia.

Mr. Simms was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a regulated firearm, possession of a regulated firearm being under twenty-one, loaded handgun in vehicle, carrying or transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and illegal possession of ammunition. He filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence recovered by Corporal Samuel from the vehicle.

During the suppression hearing, Corporal Samuel testified that while he was speaking to Mr. Simms, he "detected a strong odor of what [he knew], through [his] knowledge, training, and experience, to be marijuana coming from inside the vehicle." This prompted Corporal Samuel to search the vehicle. The suppression court judge, Hon. Wytonja L. Curry, found Corporal Samuel to be credible and denied the motion to suppress.

Prior to trial, the defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude from the jury that Corporal Samuel had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of cannabis emanating from the car. The defense argued that Mr. Simms was not charged with possession of cannabis or drug paraphernalia and revealing that to the jury could be prejudicial. The trial judge, the Hon. Judy L. Woodall, granted the motion in limine, thereby prohibiting the parties from disclosing to the jury that the odor of cannabis was the basis of the search of the vehicle.

On the first day of trial, a dispute arose regarding chain of custody of the firearm that Corporal Samuel found in the vehicle. The State attempted to introduce a document attached to the firearm into evidence. The document indicated that other officers, none of whom testified, handled the handgun prior to trial. Defense counsel objected to the admission of the document stating they never received that document during discovery, despite multiple requests. Defense counsel also objected to the admission of the handgun because of the State's failure to prove chain of custody of the handgun thus questioning its authenticity. Based on these two contentions, the defense also moved for dismissal of all charges. The trial court denied the request for dismissal because it did not believe that "the sanction of dismissal was warranted in this case." Instead, the trial court prohibited the State from introducing the document attached to the handgun into evidence, but allowed the defense to use the document in cross-examination if counsel wanted to. On the second day of trial, the State attempted to enter into evidence a second document relating to the chain of custody of the handgun. This document also had not been disclosed in discovery. Once again, the defense moved for dismissal. The court denied the motion to dismiss, but ruled that the document could not be entered into evidence.

After both sides rested, the defense moved for a motion for judgment of acquittal on the two charges related to the wear/carry/transport of a weapon and the possession of handgun under the age of twenty-one. The judge granted the judgment of acquittal for the count related to possession under the age of twenty-one and denied the others. A jury found Mr. Simms guilty of the rest of the charges: illegal possession of a regulated firearm, loaded handgun in vehicle, carrying or transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and illegal possession of ammunition.

ANALYSIS

1. The motion to suppress

When reviewing a circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, we consider:

only the facts generated by the record of the suppression hearing. We consider that evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the issue raised as grounds for suppression.

Suppression rulings present a mixed question of law and fact. We recognize that the hearing court is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, we defer to the hearing court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the hearing court's conclusions of law. Instead, we review the hearing judge's legal conclusions de novo, making out own independent constitutional evaluation as to whether the officer's encounter with the defendant was lawful."

Lockard v. State, 247 Md.App. 90, 101 (2020) (cleaned up).

Mr. Simms argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. His argument is twofold. First, he argues that Corporal Samuel did not have probable cause to search the vehicle because it was not clear where the odor was emanating from. Second, he argues that because Corporal Samuel was unable to discern whether the odor was cannabis or hemp, the search was unlawful. We find these arguments unpersuasive.

A. Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Courts have recognized certain exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions that permit law enforcement officers to search a person, home, or vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. Bowling v. State, 227 Md.App. 460, 467 (2016). One of those exceptions to the warrant requirement is the "automobile exception" also known as the "Carroll doctrine." Id. In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court found that a police officer "may search an automobile without a warrant, if he or she has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime or contraband goods." 267 U.S. 132, 155-56 (1925). Maryland courts have applied the Carroll Doctrine to cases involving cannabis. Mr. Simms asserts that the Carroll Doctrine is inapplicable to this case for two reasons.

Mr Simms argues that Corporal Samuel did not have probable cause to search his vehicle because he failed to specify in his police report where the odor of cannabis was emanating from. During the suppression hearing, Corporal Samuel was cross-examined about the details of his...