Smiley v. State

1

IESHIA SMILEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1416-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

October 24, 2024

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CR-22-001100

Friedman, Kehoe, S. Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

KEHOE, J.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Ieshia Smiley, appellant, was convicted of first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault.^[1] The court imposed a sentence of 25 years of incarceration, without parole, for the assault conviction; and a consecutive 25-year term, all suspended, for conspiracy.

Appellant noted this timely appeal. For the reasons to follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The State charged appellant in connection with a physical altercation involving appellant and Jessica Murphy that occurred on October 27, 2022. A two-day jury trial was held in April of 2023. The defense theory of the case was that the incident was not an assault, but a "mutual affray," and that Murphy had willingly engaged in a fight.

At trial, Murphy testified that, on the date of the incident, she walked into a convenience store at a gas station near her home. On her way out of the store, she stopped to talk to an acquaintance, Linda Hess.

As Murphy was talking to Hess, she was "bombarded" by appellant and Trish Taylor, appellant's wife. Appellant, whom Murphy knew as a regular customer of a store where she used to work, got "in [her] face" and asked her for ten dollars. Murphy told appellant that she did not have ten dollars to give her, and that there was no reason for her to do so. Murphy went "back and forth" with appellant, "trying to figure out what was going on."

Murphy testified: "[appellant] was in my face and she was just saying how she's going to take me out, blow me out." Taylor was "egging it on" by asking appellant, "[W]hat, you're not gonna hit [Murphy]? You're just gonna let her talk to you like that?" Murphy continued:

So they're in my face. Both of them, they were like in my face. I'm backing up. Put my hands up trying to avoid any confrontation. And then the next thing I know, I'm hit. I got hit by [appellant], and then I got hit by [Taylor]. And that's when I started to defend myself. And that's when [appellant] dragged me into the woods, had my arms behind my back like this, and her body over mine while [Taylor] beat me in the face with brass knuckles and stabbed me in my head.

Appellant threatened that she would "burn" Murphy if she "did anything[,]" and that if she "said anything" to appellant or Taylor again, she "wouldn't be here." The assault ended when the sound of approaching police sirens could be heard.

Murphy received medical treatment at the scene and was told that she needed to go to the hospital. She went home to be with her grandmother first, to "feel safe," and took herself to the hospital later.

Murphy testified that she suffered a concussion and lost three teeth as a result of being hit with brass knuckles. Two stab wounds on her head were "glued shut." Photographs of Murphy's face and mouth, which depicted the injuries she sustained in the assault, were admitted into evidence. Murphy testified that she had scars on her face and a bald spot on her scalp from the stab wounds. She was still missing her teeth because she could not afford to go to the dentist.

Hess testified that she and Murphy were "just standing there talking" when appellant and "another female" walked up to Murphy. Appellant put down two bags that she was carrying and asked Murphy "about [ten dollars] that she owed her." Appellant and Murphy "were going back and forth arguing[.]" Hess said that "the other lady also got into it." Murphy twice said that she "didn't want to do this," and she "tried to walk away a couple of times[.]" According to Hess, Murphy was then struck by either appellant or "the other woman," she was not sure which. Hess continued:

They began fighting. They were going back and forth. Both of them were hitting [Murphy]. And [Murphy] was hitting back some. And then they started to pull [Murphy] out of the parking lot and like down a little hill where the train tracks are....And they were both beating on her. And then I [saw] [appellant] got behind [Murphy] and like got behind her arms and had [Murphy] like bent over like this with her arms behind her back while the other lady was [- -] it looked like she had maybe brass knuckles on or something, and she was hitting [Murphy] in the mouth. And then the fight kept going.... And then I [saw] the other female, when [appellant] was holding her, doing a stabbing motion at [Murphy's] head.

Hess called the police. She testified that the assault continued until police sirens became audible, at which time Murphy came back up the hill. According to Hess, Murphy had "blood rolling down her face" and was spitting out teeth that had been "knocked out." Appellant laughed and said to Murphy, "And I even took it easy on you." Appellant and the other woman then got into the same car. When police arrived, Hess and Murphy pointed to the car.

Officer Quinton Epps, the responding police officer, testified that Murphy had "very significant injuries" and was "bleeding pretty bad." She was treated by paramedics at the scene but "refused" to be transported to the hospital. According to Officer Epps, appellant and Taylor had no significant injuries and did not receive medical treatment. Three knives were recovered, two from a vehicle and one from the grass "behind where [appellant and Taylor] were sitting on the side of the curb[.]" No brass knuckles were recovered.

Video footage from the gas station's security camera was admitted into evidence. The footage shows the entire encounter between Murphy, appellant, and Taylor, except that they are momentarily out of the view of the camera when the physical altercation begins, and it is not quite clear what is happening between them when they move away from the camera to a nearby stand of trees.

After the State rested its case, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on all charges. The court denied the motion. The defense presented no evidence in its case.

The court instructed the jury that, in order to convict appellant of first-degree assault, the State must prove all of the elements of second-degree assault and also that the assault was committed with intent to cause serious physical injury. On the charge of second-degree assault, the court instructed the jury on the elements of battery:^[2]

Second-degree [assault] is causing offensive physical contact to another person. In order to convict [appellant] of second-degree assault, the State must prove: [1] that [appellant] caused offensive physical contact with [Murphy]; [2] that the contact was the result of an intentional or reckless act of [appellant] and was not accidental; and [3] that the contact was not consented to by [Murphy].

The court provided further instruction on the issue of consent:

With regard to the third element of second-degree assault, the issue has been raised that [Murphy] consented to the physical fight. In other words, the issue has been raised that [Murphy] voluntarily entered into and engaged in the physical fight with [appellant] and/or [Taylor].

In order to convict [appellant] of second-degree assault, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all three of the elements of second-degree assault set forth in these instructions, including that [Murphy] did not consent to the physical contact by voluntarily entering into the physical fight with [appellant] and/or [Taylor].

During deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking for the legal definition of "consent." The court responded, "the definition of consent is to willingly enter or engage in a fight."

As stated previously, the jury found appellant guilty of second-degree assault, first- degree assault, and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault. This timely appeal followed.

Additional facts will be included in the discussion as necessary.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Appellant presents two questions for our review, which we have separated into three and rephrased for clarity:^[3]

I. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support a finding that Murphy did not consent to the assault?

II. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support a finding that there was an agreement between appellant and Taylor to commit first-degree assault?

III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's objections to Murphy's testimony that she "almost didn't make it" home after the assault, and that she would not have "made it out of the woods" if police had not been called to the scene.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

In reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, "we assess 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Mungo v. State, 258 Md.App. 332, 363 (quoting State v. McGagh, 472 Md 168, 184 (2021)), cert. denied, 486 Md. 158 (2023). "'We do not measure the weight of the evidence; rather, our concern is only whether the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, which could fairly convince a trier of fact of the defendant's guilt of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Taylor v. State, 346 Md. 530, 536 (1990)).

A trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence is typically reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v Galicia, 479 Md. 341, 389 (2002). "An abuse of discretion occurs where 'a trial judge exercises discretion in an arbitrary or...