Wallace-Bey v. State

TANIA RENEE WALLACE-BEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 476

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2016

November 2, 2017

CRIMINAL LAW—BATTERED SPOUSE SYNDROME—EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE

Where a criminal defendant charged with murdering her boyfriend offered evidence of battered spouse syndrome to support a self-defense theory, the trial court committed prejudicial error by precluding the defendant and the defendant's psychological expert from testifying about any words spoken to the defendant by the deceased victim. On the fallacious premise that all testimony about words spoken by the victim was hearsay, the court granted a motion in limine to preclude the defense from introducing "any" words spoken by the victim. The court then repeatedly sustained objections to and granted motions to strike testimony about words spoken to her by the victim. The erroneous hearsay rulings could not be considered harmless because the combined effect of those rulings substantially impaired the presentation of the entire defense case.

The court should have denied the motion in limine because the court had no basis to evaluate whether the victim's declarations were assertions and whether they would be offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. The court further erred by excluding testimony about orders or commands spoken by the victim, which were not assertions and thus could not be hearsay. The court erred even further by excluding testimony about various threatening, controlling, or demeaning remarks made by the victim, which were not offered to prove the truth of those remarks. The defendant's testimony about the victim's declarations was admissible because it was offered for the nonhearsay purpose of showing how the victim's words affected her decisions and mental state. The testimony was also admissible under the battered spouse syndrome statute (Md. Code (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 10-916 of the Courts Article), which permits the introduction of evidence of repeated psychological abuse of the defendant by the victim. The court should have permitted the psychological expert to disclose to the jury the defendant's reports of remarks that the victim made to her, for the purpose of illuminating the basis for the expert's opinion about the repeated psychological abuse.

CRIMINAL LAW—BATTERED SPOUSE SYNDROME—EXPERT TESTIMONY

Md. Code (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 10-916(b) of the Courts Article makes two types of evidence admissible in cases where a defendant charged with murder raises the issue of battered spouse syndrome: "(1) Evidence of repeated physical and psychological abuse of the defendant perpetrated by an individual who is the victim of a crime for which the defendant has been charged; and (2) Expert testimony on the Battered Spouse Syndrome." This statute does not expressly prohibit the defendant from introducing evidence that the defendant endured prior acts of abuse perpetrated by persons other than the victim. Evidence about a defendant's history of abuse perpetrated by other persons is relevant to the extent that it forms the basis for an expert's opinion about how that prior abuse affected the defendant's psychological condition during the defendant's abusive relationship with the victim and the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.

Where a witness has been properly qualified to give expert testimony about battered spouse syndrome, the trial court should permit counsel to inquire about the connections (if any) between battered spouse syndrome and any related psychological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The expert testimony may address those connections in general and then in relation to conditions observed in a specific defendant.

EVIDENCE—OPINIONS ON CREDIBILITY OF OTHER WITNESSES

During cross-examination of a criminal defendant, where a prosecutor asked the defendant whether she believed that a detective had been "lying" in his testimony about a statement she made to the detective, and where defendant objected on the ground that the question was argumentative, the trial court should have sustained the objection.

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CT072537X

REPORTED

Nazarian, Arthur, Friedman, JJ.

Opinion by Arthur, J.

In 2009 a Prince George's County jury convicted Tania Wallace-Bey of first-degree premeditated murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence in the shooting death of her boyfriend. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County sentenced her to imprisonment for life plus 20 years.

Five years later, the circuit court granted post-conviction relief, on the ground that Wallace-Bey had received ineffective assistance of counsel because her defense lawyer had failed to investigate whether she was suffering from battered spouse syndrome at the time of the shooting.

At a second trial in 2016, Wallace-Bey was convicted again of first-degree premeditated murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The court again sentenced her to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to a consecutive term of 20 years for the handgun conviction.

Wallace-Bey noted a timely appeal and now presents two questions for review:

1. Did the circuit court impermissibly limit the testimony of [Wallace-Bey] and the defense expert?

2. Did the circuit court err in permitting the State to question [Wallace-Bey] about the credibility of another witness?

The answer to both questions is: Yes. First and foremost, we conclude that the circuit court committed prejudicial error by requiring Wallace-Bey to present the evidence that the victim repeatedly abused her without mentioning any words that he actually said to her. The judgments must be reversed on that basis alone. We shall address the other evidentiary issues to provide guidance for another trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The First Trial and the Related Post-Conviction Proceedings

At around 5:15 p.m. on October 24, 2007, Tania Wallace-Bey called 911. She reported that her boyfriend, Julius Whaley, had raped her and that she had shot him.

Police officers found Whaley's body on the floor of a bedroom inside his apartment. He had died hours earlier from a single gunshot to the chest.

Wallace-Bey told paramedics that she had tried to kill herself by ingesting sleeping pills and alcohol. The paramedics took her by ambulance to a hospital for treatment.

Detective Michael Lanier of the Greenbelt Police Department obtained oral and written statements from Wallace-Bey at the hospital. Later that night, Wallace-Bey gave another statement when she underwent a sexual assault forensic examination. In her statements, Wallace-Bey said that Whaley had raped her early that morning, that afterwards she shot him once, and that later she tried to commit suicide.

Upon visiting the residence in Philadelphia where Wallace-Bey had been living with her mother before the shooting, Detective Lanier discovered that Wallace-Bey had already been preparing to commit suicide in the days before she killed Whaley.

In December 2007, a Prince George's County grand jury indicted Wallace-Bey for first-degree premeditated murder of Whaley and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Although Wallace-Bey told her private defense counsel that Whaley had repeatedly abused her during the months leading up to the shooting, her counsel did not seek out an evaluation for battered spouse syndrome. Instead, counselrelied on a theory of self-defense, without calling any witnesses. The jury found Wallace-Bey guilty on both counts, and the court sentenced her to life imprisonment plus 20 years.

After this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, Wallace-Bey petitioned for post-conviction relief on several grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. At a post-conviction hearing, Dr. Patricia McGraw expressed her expert opinion that Wallace-Bey was suffering from battered spouse syndrome at the time that she shot Whaley.

The post-conviction court found that Wallace-Bey's trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate battered spouse syndrome. The court also found that counsel's inadequate performance prejudiced Wallace-Bey's defense. On March 13, 2014, the court vacated Wallace-Bey's convictions and granted her a new trial.

B. The State's Case Against Wallace-Bey

The circuit court held a jury trial over six days from March 14, 2016, to March 22, 2016. The trial focused on the events leading up to the shooting and Wallace-Bey's mental state during it. There was no dispute that Wallace-Bey caused Whaley's death by shooting him.

The State theorized that Wallace-Bey had killed Whaley as the first part of a murder-suicide plan. It contended that Wallace-Bey came to visit Whaley with the intention of killing him along with herself, that she shot him while he was asleep, and that her subsequent suicide attempt failed.

The defense claimed that Wallace-Bey shot Whaley to defend herself just after hehad forcibly raped her. The defense claimed further that she was suffering from the effects of repeated abuse by Whaley.

Throughout defense counsel's opening statement, the prosecutor made dozens of objections, many of which the court sustained. It appears that the court sustained objections to comments about anything that Whaley said to Wallace-Bey during their relationship, but overruled objections to comments about what Whaley did to her. For instance, the court sustained an objection to a comment that Whaley demeaned Wallace-Bey by telling her that she was "sick" and "destined for stagnation and failure," but overruled an objection to a comment that Whaley once "kicked her while she was on the ground."

The State established that at about 5:15 p.m. on October 24, 2007, police officers and paramedics responded to a 911 call, in which Wallace-Bey reported that her boyfriend had raped her and that she had shot him. When they arrived at the...