Williams v. State

1

NATHANIEL LEONARD WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 357-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

February 12, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CR-21-000509

Berger, Leahy, Wright, Alexander, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

BERGER, J.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Nathaniel Leonard Williams ("Williams"), appellant, was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor by a family member, second-degree rape, third-degree sexual offense, fourth-degree sexual offense, unnatural or perverted sexual practice, and second-degree assault. The circuit court sentenced Williams to fifty years of imprisonment, with all but twenty years suspended, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Williams presents a single question for our review, which we rephrase slightly as follows:^[1]

Whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of prior uncharged sexual acts that Williams allegedly perpetrated upon the same victim in another jurisdiction.

For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The incident giving rise to this appeal occurred in 2020, when Williams's then fourteen-year-old daughter, S.W., accused Williams of sexually abusing her on multiple occasions.^[2] Following the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, Williams and S.W.'s mother, Ms. E., began splitting custody of their two children - S.W. and her brother, E.W. When S.W. and E.W. stayed with their father, they attended virtual school from Williams's apartment in Glen Bumie, Maryland, where Williams lived with his wife, Ms. W., as well as S.W.'s step-siblings and half-sibling. S.W. testified that one night while she was staying at Williams's apartment, he texted her to join him in the living room while the other occupants of the apartment were in their bedrooms. S.W. met him in the living room, where Williams was drinking alcohol. Although S.W. tried to leave the living room, Williams made her sit on the couch and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Approximately one-to-two weeks later, on September 11, 2020, S.W. and E.W. were once again staying with Williams and attending virtual school. Williams was also home in the Glen Bumie apartment, along with S.W.'s three step-siblings, one half-sibling, and two of Ms. W.'s cousins. During S.W.'s lunch break, Williams asked S.W. to come into his bedroom. Williams touched S.W.'s thighs, repeatedly prevented her from leaving the bedroom, and ignored her pleas for him to stop touching her. Eventually, Williams went into the bathroom to take a shower and S.W. left the bedroom. After Williams showered and dressed, he called S.W. back into his bedroom, where he forced her onto his bed. Williams proceeded to vaginally rape S.W. while her two-year-old half-sibling slept on the other end of the bed.

About a week later, on September 20, 2021, S.W. told her mother that Williams had sexually assaulted her. S.W., E.W., and Ms. E. went to the Aime Arundel County Police Department to report Williams. At the station, S.W. sat for an interview with Detective Justin Downey of the Criminal Investigation Division. S.W. alleged that the two incidents discussed above were not the only times Williams had touched her sexually. S.W. estimated that Williams vaginally raped her at least five times and forced her to perform oral sex on him at least twice in the Glen Bumie apartment. S.W. later testified that Williams started touching her sexually when she was approximately eight years old, when she was living with Williams and her great-grandmother in Washington, D.C. The incidents of abuse in Washington, D.C. involved Williams forcing S.W. to perform oral sex and engage in anal intercourse.

On April 2, 2021, a grand jury indicted Williams on eight charges of criminal activity occurring from August 1, 2020 through September 11, 2020 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland: sexual abuse of a minor by a family member, sexual abuse of a minor as a continuing course of conduct, first-degree rape, second-degree rape, third-degree sexual offense, fourth-degree sexual offense, unnatural or perverted sexual practice, and second-degree assault.

Williams's trial commenced on September 21, 2021. Prior to opening statements, the State nolle prossed the count of sexual abuse of a minor as a continuing course of conduct. Additionally, Williams made a motion in limine seeking to exclude S.W.'s testimony about the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated in Washington, D.C. prior to August 1, 2020. Williams argued that this testimony constituted inadmissible evidence of prior crimes that did not fall within the sexual propensity exception articulated in Vogel v. State, 315 Md. 458 (1989). The court originally niled in favor of the defense, but the State urged the Court to review Vogel before reaching its conclusion on the motion in limine. After reviewing Vogel, the court concluded that the challenged testimony was admissible and denied Williams's motion in limine.

Following opening statements, the State called S.W. as its first witness. S.W. gave detailed testimony about the two specific incidents of abuse discussed above that occurred between August 1, 2020 and September 11, 2020. She also testified that her father repeatedly abused her in Washington, D.C. stalling when she was approximately eight years old, and that Williams had told her that these activities were "just a way of fathers and daughters bonding with each other." Williams did not object to this testimony while S.W. was on the stand. S.W.'s testimony was followed by testimony from other State witnesses including E.W., Ms. E., Ms. W., Detective Justin Downey of the Anne Arundel County Police Department, and Ms. E.'s daughter and S.W.'s step-sister, ED. Following the State's presentation of evidence, Williams moved for a judgment of acquittal as to all counts, which the court denied.

Williams took the stand as the sole defense witness and denied ever engaging in sexual conduct with S.W. Following his testimony, Williams renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal as to all counts, which the court once again denied. When the court reviewed jury instructions with counsel, Williams renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the first-degree rape charge. The Court granted this motion, leaving the following counts for the jury's consideration: sexual abuse of a minor by a family member, second-degree rape, third-degree sexual offense, fourth-degree sexual offense, unnatural or perverted sexual practice, and second-degree assault. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.

On September 27, 2021, Williams moved for a new trial based on the court's admission of S W.'s testimony alleging that Williams sexually abused her while living in Washington, D.C. prior to August 1, 2020. The court denied Williams's motion. Williams was ultimately sentenced to fifty years of incarceration, with all but twenty years suspended, followed by a five-year period of supervised probation.^[3] This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Williams argues that the circuit court erred in admitting S.W.'s testimony regarding the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by Williams in Washington, D.C prior to August 1, 2020. Generally, evidence of a defendant's other crimes or bad acts is inadmissible to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charged offense or to prove the defendant's propensity to commit criminal acts. See Md. Rule 5-404(b); Streater v. State, 352 Md. 800, 806 (1999); Straughn v. State, 297 Md 329, 333 (1983). Nonetheless, evidence of a defendant's other crimes or bad acts may be admissible if the evidence has "special relevance - that it 'is substantially relevant to some contested issue and is not offered simply to prove criminal character.'" Wynn v. State, 351 Md. 307, 316 (1998) (quoting State v. Taylor, 347 Md. 363, 368 (1997)). Indeed, Maryland Rule 5-404 provides that evidence of "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" may be admissible to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accidental" Md. Rule 5-404(b). This, however, is not an exhaustive list. Id.

Generally, this Court reviews trial court rulings on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Vielot v. State, 225 Md.App. 492, 500 (2015) (citing Hopkins v. State, 352 Md. 146, 158 (1998)). Under this standard, we will generally not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence "unless the evidence is plainly inadmissible under a specific rule or principle of law or there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Portillo Funes v State, 469 Md. 438, 479 (2020) (quoting Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 404-05 (1997)).

One well-established category of evidence with special relevance is evidence of prior sexual acts by a defendant charged with sexual crimes. In Vogel v. State, the Supreme Court of Maryland held:

It is abundantly clear that this Court has recognized the exception to the rule excluding evidence of prior crimes when (1) the prosecution is for sexual crimes, (2) the prior illicit sexual acts are similar to that for which the accused is on trial, and (3) the same accused and victim are involved.

Vogel, supra, 315 Md. at 465. The Court also concluded that, "in order to be admissible for the limited pmposes enumerated in the appropriate exception . . . evidence [of the collateral offenses] must be clear and convincing to the trial judge." Id. at 467 (quoting Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 478 (1978)).

In Williams's motion in limine seeking to exclude S.W.'s testimony about the sexual acts that allegedly occurred in Washington, D.C. beginning when S.W. was eight years...