Taylor v. State

1

STEVEN ANTHONY TAYLOR v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2255-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

January 22, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court Harford County Case No. 12-K-98-000892

Wells C.J., Ripken, Eyler, James R., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Wells C.J.

In 1999, a jury empaneled in the Circuit Court for Harford County convicted Steven Anthony Taylor of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, and two counts of using a handgun in a felony or crime of violence. The court sentenced Taylor to life imprisonment and a consecutive twenty years, all but five suspended. In 2016, Taylor filed a petition seeking new testing for DNA evidence, which the court subsequently granted.

In 2022, Taylor filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence, claiming two pieces of evidence met the statutory requirements. One was a nylon mask discovered at the crime scene and later admitted as evidence in the 1999 trial which contained Taylor's DNA, plus one other sample from another person. DNA testing done at Taylor's request in 2016 showed two additional DNA samples on the mask. The other piece of evidence was a memorandum that summarized a police interview with a prison inmate. In the transcribed interview the inmate discussed events related to the crime, including how the inmate disposed of the murder weapon ("Supermax Memo"). Taylor claimed this memorandum exculpated him.

The circuit court held a hearing on December 7, 2022, on Taylor's petition, and denied the requested relief. The court determined neither the new DNA evidence nor the memo pointed to Taylor's actual innocence nor would their admission at trial likely have changed the trial's outcome. Taylor timely noted this appeal and submitted two questions for our review^[1], which we have rephrased and consolidated into one:

Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by denying Taylor's Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence, when determining neither the new DNA evidence nor the Supermax Memo satisfied the three requirements for relief?

For the reasons we will discuss, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October of 1999, Taylor was convicted of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery conspiracy to commit armed robbery, first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, and two counts of using a handgun in a felony or crime of violence. The convictions stemmed from a home invasion that occurred on June 30, 1998. The evidence at trial showed five people conspired to rob Victor Maldonado: Taylor, Gregory Orsini, Will Sheppard, Bill Marshall, and a fifth person who was not identified. During the commission of the robbery, John Von Haack, the owner of the home, was shot and killed. Taylor and others were arrested shortly thereafter. ^[2]

Trial and Evidence

As part of a plea agreement, Orsini testified against Taylor and the other coconspirators. Orsini testified that on June 29, 1998, he and the four others involved, including Taylor, surveilled Maldonado's home, learned its layout, and planned to go back on June 30 to commit the robbery. The next day, Orsini testified he picked up Sheppard, Taylor, and the unknown participant. Orsini stated the three men were wearing dark clothing, and Taylor had on a "dark-colored stocking." Orsini then drove to meet up with Marshall, where everyone but Orsini jumped into Marshall's vehicle and drove toward the Von Haack house. When Orsini returned to his own house, he learned Von Haack was killed. The next day he turned himself into the police and gave a statement.

At the crime scene, the police recovered several pieces of evidence, including a black nylon stocking tied in a knot. Testing on the black nylon stocking indicated traces of saliva. A known sample of Taylor's DNA was sent to the lab with the saliva found on the nylon stocking. The Maryland State Police Crime Lab was able to exclude Orsini, Sheppard, Marshall, and Von Haack as the DNA's source. The crime lab found the DNA on the stocking was a mixed DNA profile, and the mixture was "17,000 times more likely" a mixture from Taylor and one unknown individual.

The State argued Taylor was one of the robbers and suggested he fired the fatal shot that killed Von Haack. During deliberations, the jury asked, "if Taylor was in the car planning the attempted robbery the previous night, does he still receive same charge as murder?" The court responded by providing a supplemental instruction on co-conspirator liability. After which, Taylor was convicted of all charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a consecutive twenty years, all but five suspended.

Motion for Post-Conviction Review

In June 2016, Taylor filed a Motion for Post-Conviction Review of DNA Evidence referencing the nylon stocking. The motion was granted because the judge found "a substantial possibility that advanced DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to the claim of wrongful conviction." The results of the new DNA testing revealed a mixture of DNA profiles. One profile was from Taylor. There were also a minimum of three additional contributors, which was two more than the original DNA results.

Motion and Hearing for Writ of Actual Innocence

On April 8, 2022, Taylor filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence, asserting two pieces of newly discovered evidence merited relief. The first was the 2016 DNA results. Taylor pointed to the DNA analyst's conclusion that "[i]t is 74.2 septillion times more likely to obtain these mixture results if Steven Anthony Taylor Jr. and three unknown unrelated individuals are contributors than if four unknown, unrelated individuals are contributors." He argued these results revealed an even larger contributor pool, thus creating a substantial likelihood of his actual innocence.

In addition to the DNA evidence, Taylor argued that a police report he obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request, the so-called Supermax Memo, exonerated him. The Supermax Memo memorialized an interview with an unnamed inmate who told the investigator where to find the missing gun used to kill Von Haack. The pertinent part of the Supermax memo is as follows:

At 900 hours on 2/22/99 I interviewed [REDACTED] in the attorney interview room at Supermax .... [REDACTED] stated he knew where the .45 caliber handgun was located because he was with person [sic] that hid it after the murder of Von Haack. [REDACTED] stated he wanted to complete his sentence at Harford County Detention center in exchange for this information .... [REDACTED] stated he wanted his lawyer present when he made his statement and to confirm any agreement.

Taylor contended this information showed an alternate suspect murdered Von Haack.

On December 7, 2022, the Circuit Court for Harford County held a hearing on Taylor's petition. Taylor argued the Supermax Memo identified a new potential suspect, showing his actual innocence. He maintained he could not have known about this suspect in time to move for a new trial. Taylor then argued similarly regarding the new DNA evidence. He concluded, that when considering these two new pieces of evidence together, there was a substantial likelihood of a different result at trial.

The State responded that the new DNA evidence did not suggest Taylor's actual innocence, nor would it have affected the verdict. Rather, the additional DNA testing only further incriminated him.^[3] Additionally, nothing in the Supermax Memo, the State contended, spoke to Taylor's actual innocence because it provided no details as to Taylor's involvement or, more importantly, the lack thereof. Moreover, the jury convicted Taylor for participating in a conspiracy, and neither the DNA nor the Supermax Memo changed the fact that Taylor was one of several people who were involved in the home invasion.

On January 20, 2023, the circuit court denied Taylor's petition, finding he failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the three requirements for relief. The court ruled:

Due to recent advancements in DNA testing, the newly discovered DNA contributors would not have been able to have been discovered at the time of trial. This arguably makes the Defendant's task of satisfying the second prong of the test required for a writ of actual innocence complete. However, as for the remaining requirements, this Court is not moved that this more advanced DNA evidence speaks to the petitioner's actual innocence. In addition, the more precise DNA evidence does not create a substantial or significant possibility that the trial result may have been different. The evidence shows more clearly that the Defendant was at the scene of the murder. This does not advance a notion of actual innocence of the Defendant.

The fact that there were four contributors to the DNA on the nylon mask likely would not have had any effect on this case. The testimony and evidence at trial showed that there were five individuals involved with the home invasion, with at least three entering the home. The presence of the newly found DNA does not speak to the Petitioner's innocence, but rather goes to show that the other individuals involved in the home invasion may also have been in close proximity to the mask. Further, the new DNA testing actually confirms to a greater degree the Petitioner's involvement in the murder, as the new testing revealed a much higher probability that the DNA on the nylon mask belonged to the petitioner. As noted for the same reasons above, the new DNA report does not create a substantial or significant possibility that the trial result may

...