Wynne v. State

HARDAWAY WYNNE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2574

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

April 5, 2021

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 119164015

UNREPORTED

Berger, Leahy, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Berger, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Hardaway Wynne, appellant, was arrested and charged, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, with various offenses related to a shooting. At the start of trial, Mr. Wynne filed a motion to suppress a statement he made to the police following the shooting. That motion was denied. A jury ultimately convicted Mr. Wynne of first-degree assault, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and reckless endangerment. Mr. Wynne was later sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment for the conviction of first-degree assault and a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment for the firearm conviction. The conviction for reckless endangerment was merged for sentencing purposes.

In this appeal, Mr. Wynne presents four questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress?

2. Did the trial court err in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim?

3. Did the trial court err in allowing a police officer to give lay opinion testimony regarding the type of ammunition used in the shooting?

4. Did the trial court err in sustaining the State's objection to a portion of defense counsel's closing argument?

For reasons to follow, we hold that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in its rulings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2019, Mr. Wynne was in his garage with a female friend, Bonita Day. At some point, Mr. Wynne and Ms. Day got into an altercation, and Ms. Day pushed Mr. Wynne, causing him to fall over. Mr. Wynne got up, went to the back of the garage, andretrieved a shotgun. Mr. Wynne returned and pointed the shotgun at Ms. Day's head. He eventually lowered the shotgun and fired, striking Ms. Day in the legs. Ms. Day was later taken to the hospital for treatment. While Ms. Day was being treated, the police arrived and spoke with Mr. Wynne, who was waiting outside the hospital's emergency room. During that conversation, Mr. Wynne made several statements regarding the shooting. Mr. Wynne was later arrested and charged.

Suppression Hearing

At the start of trial, Mr. Wynne moved to suppress the statements he made to the police at the hospital following the shooting. He argued that he had not been advised of his Miranda¹ rights before the statements were made. The State countered that advising Mr. Wynne of his Miranda rights was unnecessary because he was not in custody.

Baltimore City Police Officer Troy Anthony testified that, on May 10, 2019, he responded to the University of Maryland Hospital in Baltimore after getting a call for a "walk-in shooting victim." Upon arriving at the hospital, Officer Anthony encountered a woman with "wounds to her lower leg." At some point, hospital security personnel informed Officer Anthony that there was an individual waiting outside of the emergency room who "was part of the incident." Officer Anthony later identified that individual as Mr. Wynne. Officer Anthony testified that he went out and spoke with Mr. Wynne "to figure out what was going on." As he did, Officer Anthony activated his body-worn camera, which recorded his subsequent conversation with Mr. Wynne. In that recording,which was played for the court, Mr. Wynne stated that he and Ms. Day had gotten into a fight and that, during the fight, he had brandished a shotgun. When Officer Anthony asked Mr. Wynne how Ms. Day ended up in the hospital, Mr. Wynne responded that "the gun went off accidently" and that he "did not intend to shoot her." Officer Anthony then told Mr. Wynne to "come with us" because the officer had "to see this weapon."

Officer Anthony testified that Mr. Wynne was not under arrest, was not placed in handcuffs, and was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to his making the statements. Officer Anthony stated that, when he learned of Mr. Wynne's presence, he "came out and started talking" to Mr. Wynne to "figure out what's going on." Officer Anthony testified that he did not tell Mr. Wynne that he was not free to leave. Officer Anthony added that Mr. Wynne was "under investigation."

In the end, the trial court denied Mr. Wynne's motion to suppress. The court found that Mr. Wynne was not in custody at the time the statements were made.

Trial

At trial, Officer Anthony testified to the events at the hospital following the shooting. During that testimony, the State played the recording of Officer Anthony's conversation with Mr. Wynne that was the subject of the motion to suppress.

Ms. Day testified as well, stating that, on the day of the shooting, she met Mr. Wynne at his garage, where they drank alcohol and smoked crack. Ms. Day testified that Mr. Wynne became agitated when she told him she was going to leave. When Ms. Day tried to leave, Mr. Wynne grabbed her and threw her across a nearby table. Ms. Day thenretrieved her phone and tried to call 911, but Mr. Wynne slapped the phone out of her hand. Ms. Day then pushed Mr. Wynne, and he fell over. After getting up, Mr. Wynne went to the back of the garage and retrieved a shotgun, which he brought back and pointed at Ms. Day's head. Mr. Wynne then threatened to "blow" Ms. Day's "head off." Ms. Day asked Mr. Wynne to lower the shotgun, which he did. Shortly thereafter, the "gun went off," striking Ms. Day in her lower extremities. Ms. Day then telephoned her daughter for help. Ms. Day was eventually picked up by her son-in-law, who took her to the hospital for treatment.

Detective Keith Savadel of the Baltimore City Police Department testified that he investigated the shooting. Detective Savadel testified that the results of his investigation, which included an examination of Ms. Day's wounds and the crime scene, were consistent with Ms. Day's story that Mr. Wynne fired one shotgun blast at her legs.

Mr. Wynne was ultimately convicted. Additional facts will be supplied below when necessary to our determination of the issues in this appeal.

DISCUSSION

I.

Mr. Wynne first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Specifically, he argues that the court erred in ruling that he was not in custody at the time the statements were made. He contends that the circumstances surrounding his conversation with Officer Anthony were such that "a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave the officer in the hospital waiting room and go about hisbusiness." In support, he notes that Officer Anthony was at the hospital in response to a shooting; that Officer Anthony considered him a suspect in the shooting; that Officer Anthony did not tell him whether he was or was not free to leave; and that Officer Anthony wanted to take him to his garage to retrieve the shotgun.

The State contends that the court did not err in denying Mr. Wynne's motion to suppress. The State maintains that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Wynne was in custody.

"Our review of a circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is limited to the record developed at the suppression hearing." Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311, 319 (2019) (citations and quotations omitted). "[W]e view the evidence presented at the [suppression] hearing, along with any reasonable inferences drawable therefrom, in a light most favorable to the prevailing party." Davis v. State, 426 Md. 211, 219 (2012). Moreover, "[w]e extend great deference to the findings of the hearing court with respect to first-level findings of fact and the credibility of witnesses unless it is shown that the court's findings are clearly erroneous." Daniels v. State, 172 Md. App. 75, 87 (2006). "We give no deference, however, to the question of whether, based on the facts, the trial court's decision was in accordance with the law." Seal v. State, 447 Md. 64, 70 (2016). In short, "[w]e accept the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but we review de novo the court's application of the law to its findings of fact." Pacheco, 465 Md. at 319 (citations and quotations omitted).

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the police must "advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation." Lee v. State, 418 Md. 136, 149 (2011) (citations and quotations omitted). "These well-known Miranda warnings require an individual to be informed that 'he has a right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.'" Reynolds v. State, 461 Md. 159, 178 (2018) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479). "If the warnings are not given or the police officers fail to respect the person's proper invocation of their rights, 'the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from the custodial interrogation of the defendant.'" Vargas-Salguero v. State, 237 Md. App. 317, 336 (2018) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474).

That said, "Miranda's safeguards were intended to provide protection against the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation." Marr v. State, 134 Md. App. 152, 173 (2000) (emphasis added). "Thus, the first issue in any Miranda violation case is 'whether the questioned party was in custody.'" Craig v. State, 148 Md. App. 670, 686 (2002) (internal citations omitted). "In analyzing whether an individual is in custody...