In a Maryland criminal trial, the process unfolds in a series of interactions. Witnesses give testimony. If a witness testifies in a way that one side deems improper, that side may object. Well-timed objections may be crucial to the defense, allowing it to exclude potentially damaging testimony. Knowing when to make and how to phrase objections is just one of many areas in which an accused person can benefit from representation by an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.
An auto theft case from Montgomery County illustrates how well-timed objections can help protect a defendant.
The case stemmed from an incident in which Montgomery County Police responded to a 911 call and found at the scene “a window punch, a tool used in the automotive industry to override push-to-start vehicles, a box used to bypass key fobs, and a key fob.”
The state charged M.C. with attempted motor vehicle theft and possession of burglary tools. At the man’s trial, the prosecution called an MCPD detective to testify. That detective “about the window punch, the key programmer, and the key fob [and] how the latter two interact.”
The defense made several objections to the detective’s testimony, including arguing that portions of it required expert testimony. The trial judge initially sustained the objection to the detective’s expert testimony, but ultimately allowed the detective to continue testifying.
The jury found M.C. guilty of both attempted motor vehicle theft and possession of burglary tools. M.C. appealed.
The appeals court ruled in favor of the accused and reversed his conviction. As an initial matter, the court concluded that the defense properly “preserved” the expert testimony issue. During M.C.’s trial, the defense objected because the detective was offering expert, not lay witness, testimony when he began explaining how a locksmith would use an advanced diagnostic key programmer and a key fob. The state contended that, because the defense did not object when the detective testified about the functionality of the tools as opposed to how a locksmith employed their
functionality, the defense had failed to preserve the issue.
The court disagreed, noting that the defense lodged numerous objections during the detective’s testimony, and several of those objections addressed the detective’s testimony “veering” into expert testimony. Those objections covered the testimony at issue, and the defense did not need to raise additional objections to preserve the issue.
Beyond the Comprehension of the ‘Average Layman’
Having concluded that the defense properly preserved the issue, the court further held that the trial judge erred in allowing the detective to testify as he did. The state contended that key fobs are so widespread that understanding how they work is commonplace. The appeals court noted, however, that the issue was not the use of key fobs generally, but rather with key fob programmers, “which are not at all common to public experience with cars.”
The court explained the difference between lay witness testimony and expert testimony. If a witness offers an opinion that is “(1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue,” then that is not expert testimony. On the other hand, “when the subject of the inference . . . is so particularly related to some science or profession that is beyond the ken of the average layman,’ it may be introduced only through the testimony of an expert witness properly qualified under” the rules.
In the past, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court have ruled that when “officers use their specialized technical knowledge to distill information into a more digestible form,” that is expert testimony. That was what happened in M.C.’s case. Based on his professional experience, the detective opined on who used the tools found at the scene and on the technical details of how those tools worked. That included the detective distilling technical information into “a format the jury could consume” and translating “into inferences bearing on [M.C.’s] guilt.” Given that content, the state should have been required to qualify the detective as an expert. Because it did not, the accused was entitled to a reversal of his conviction.
Timely and well-worded objections are just one aspect of presenting a criminal defense, but they are a crucial one. To ensure you have the robust defense you need for the charges you are facing, call upon the knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC. We have effectively defended accused individuals in Maryland for many years and are here to fight for your rights, too. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation.