State v. Grafton

255 Md.App. 128

278 A.3d 239

STATE of Maryland

v.Michael O. GRAFTON

No. 1218, Sept. Term, 2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 29, 2022

Submitted by: Andrew J. Dimiceli (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant

Submitted by: Toni Holness (Paul B. De Wolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee

Panel: Berger, Ripken, Alexander Wright, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Berger, J.

In this appeal, the State of Maryland, appellant, challenges the dismissal of a criminal information filed against Michael O. Grafton, appellee.¹ On July 12, 2018, the State filed a criminal information against Grafton charging him with various theft crimes.² Trial was scheduled to begin in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on September 28, 2021. On September 27, 2021, Grafton filed a motion to dismiss and a request for sanctions. A hearing was held the following day. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion and dismissed the criminal information in its entirety. This timely appeal followed.

The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the criminal information. For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse the circuit court's order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. In a criminal information filed on July 12, 2018, the State charged Grafton with one count of theft scheme, specifically, a scheme to "steal U.S. Currency (money) property of" eleven named individuals "having a value of at least $10,000 but less than $100,000," and eleven counts of theft by deception of various amounts of money belonging to each of the same individuals with knowledge that each victim was a vulnerable adult.³ The State alleged that the thefts occurred between July 4, 2014 and November 30, 2018.

The State alleged that Grafton was employed by Mid-Atlantic Human Services Corporation ("Mid-Atlantic") as a residential program manager until he was terminated from his employment on November 30, 2016. Grafton acknowledged that from 2013 to 2016, he was employed by Mid-Atlantic as a facility coordinator and that he was paid a salary to oversee day-to-day operations at three different group homes. He worked in an " ‘on-call’ capacity" and travelled to different group homes to address issues with residents as they arose. The residents of the group homes were disabled adult men. Each resident received Social Security Disability Income and income from Maryland's Developmental Disabilities Administration. Mid-Atlantic acted as the representative payee for the residents. Each resident's disability income was used to pay for rent, groceries, community outings, clothing, furniture, and other personal needs.

The State alleged that, as part of his job, Grafton managed personal use funds for the residents. Each resident had personal use funds, akin to petty cash, that were kept in a bank account. Once a month, Grafton filled out a form requesting to remove money from a resident's bank account. The amount requested was based on the amount of money the resident had used during the prior month. After receiving the cash, Grafton placed it in a secure location in the group home to cover that resident's personal expenses for things such as activities, food, and clothing. Grafton was responsible for documenting the use of the personal use funds and reconciling the expenses to receipts provided by him or a live-in caregiver. At the end of each month, Grafton prepared a spreadsheet showing the date the funds were used, the store name, a description of the purchase, and the amount of cash spent.

He also provided receipts to support that information. Grafton was responsible for comparing the amount spent to the amount remaining for each resident. If an expense was not valid, Grafton was to report the issue to his supervisor. The State alleged that Grafton, or others aided and abetted by him, submitted receipts to cover up his removal of cash from residents’ accounts for unauthorized purchases.

A. Grafton's Motion to Dismiss

On the day before trial was set to begin, Grafton, by his defense counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the criminal information or, in the alternative, for sanctions against witnesses from Mid-Atlantic. The defense argued that, under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny, and Maryland Rule 4-263⁴ , the State had failed "to disclose exculpatory information, including impeachment information and information not otherwise admissible at trial that may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

According to the defense, earlier on the day the motion to dismiss was filed, the prosecutor had disclosed that during the same time frame that Grafton's alleged thefts occurred, another former employee of Mid-Atlantic, Tara Buddenbohn, was caught stealing money from the accounts of some of the disabled residents, that the company confronted her, and that she confessed. At the time Buddenbohn embezzled funds, she was employed as the entitlement benefits coordinator, and was in charge of giving Grafton the residents’ cash and reconciling the residents’ personal use funds. Buddenbohn's name appeared on the cover page of Mid-Atlantic's Personal Use Funds Procedures Training Packet.

The prosecutor disclosed to defense counsel that criminal charges had been filed against Buddenbohn in Baltimore County and Harford County and she provided defense counsel with four case numbers and two police reports related to those criminal cases. In Baltimore County, a nolle prosequi was entered as to the charges, but the Harford County case proceeded and Buddenbohn pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay restitution.⁵

In his motion to dismiss, Grafton alleged:

The prosecutor indicated that she was not aware of the prosecution against Ms. Buddenbohn until witnesses from the company disclosed it to her this morning. She immediately contacted counsel realizing this information was exculpatory. Unfortunately, the prosecutor had no records from the company regarding the details of the embezzlement and was only able to pull up information from secured case search. She sent counsel an email with four case numbers and two police reports attached. Exhibit B. As of the filing of this motion, this was the only information available to Counsel regarding this exculpatory evidence.

The defense maintained that Mid-Atlantic had been "aware of this overlapping incident since first initiating charges against" Grafton and that no witness from the company "previously disclosed this information in response to defense subpoenas." On December 18, 2019, the circuit court had ordered Mid-Atlantic to produce tangible evidence before trial, including reconciliation records for the residents’ accounts from 2014-2016, "including emails regarding reconciliation and records of accounts approved." In response, Mid-Atlantic produced records that the defense argued were incomplete. At a September 13, 2021 motions hearing, the prosecutor "proffered that the records disclosed were only those records that the company thought there were problems with." The defense asserted that as of the date of the motion to dismiss, Mid-Atlantic had "failed to comply with the Court's order to disclose all reconciliation records pertaining to the disabled residents during the relevant time frame."

According to the defense, from the limited information available from the police reports provided, Buddenbohn "was caught stealing from at least one of the same residents who [was] named in the charges against Mr. Grafton." Further, as the entitlement benefits coordinator, Buddenbohn "would have been the person who approved the reconciliation reports each month, and redistributed client money pursuant to the approval." The defense argued that had the complete reconciliation records been produced, that information would have been revealed.

On September 14, 2021, defense counsel issued subpoenas for witnesses from Mid-Atlantic. The subpoenas were marked "as subpoenas duces tecum and included a list of materials previously requested." On Friday, September 24, 2021, counsel for Mid-Atlantic advised defense counsel that "he would not provide additional materials in response to the subpoena because the company did not have time to respond." In the week prior to Grafton's scheduled trial, the State "continued disclosing documents received from the company that would have been relevant in response to the prior defense motion for tangible evidence."

The defense asserted that throughout the discovery process, Mid-Atlantic "had full knowledge that there was a concurrent prosecution pertaining to theft from the same disabled residents during the same time period," that Buddenbohn had confessed to the theft, and that she later pleaded guilty. The defense stated:

It appears to the defense that the company deliberately redacted material that would have led to this being discovered sooner. Counsel had no reason to know of the concurrent prosecution of Ms. Buddenbohn. Her departure from the company was not explained to the staff, and based on the defense investigation, the defense was under the impression that Ms. Buddenbohn had left the company after deciding to become a stay at home mom.

The defense argued that although the prosecutor was personally unaware of the prosecution of Buddenbohn until the day before trial, that did not excuse the State's violation of Grafton's constitutional right to due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Articles 21 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Maryland Rule 4-263, Brady , and other state and federal cases. The defense maintained that knowledge of Buddenbohn's cases should be imputed to the prosecutor handling Grafton's case, including both the case in Baltimore County and the case in Harford County.

The...