Assault

How the “Rule of Lenity” Approaches Maryland Cases Involving Multiple Charges of Criminal Conduct

April 14, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Every stage of a criminal case, from arrest to the final appeal, presents an opportunity to assert one’s rights. The Constitution and local state laws ensure that no citizen may be deprived of these rights unfairly and without due process. Maryland courts are often called upon to interpret various provisions of the state criminal code as it applies to any one particular person alleged to have committed a crime. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, you may be entitled to assert a solid defense to the charges. The most effective course of action is to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible after an arrest.

In a recent case, Wiredu v. State of Maryland, the appellant successfully appealed part of his sentences. According to the facts, Wiredu was driving home on a four-lane road (two southbound and two northbound lanes) when his truck collided with a motorcycle headed in the oncoming lane. Although Wiredu testified that the motorcycle swerved into his lane, an officer witnessed the accident and testified that Wiredu “merged” into the motorcycle’s oncoming lane. The officer’s version of the incident was corroborated by a Baltimore firefighter who also witnessed the accident.

Maryland Court Upholds Criminal Conviction for Second-Degree Assault

December 9, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Under Maryland law, a person can be charged with the following three types of second-degree assault: intent to frighten, attempted battery, and battery. Case law sets forth explicit criteria to determine whether a criminal defendant has committed any of these crimes. In order to convict a defendant, the State must offer supporting evidence to satisfy each of the elements. In many criminal cases, the person charged may be able to assert various defenses in order to either negate or reduce the severity of the charges. A criminal arrest is a serious matter and should be handled accordingly. An experienced criminal defense attorney would carefully review your case and prepare the best defense under the circumstances.

In a recent Maryland court of appeals case, the defendant was charged with certain criminal offenses, including second-degree assault of the “intent-to-frighten” type against the victim, Christine Johnson (“Johnson” or “victim”). The facts revealed at trial indicate that the defendant walked up to an apartment and knocked on the door. There was some yelling between the defendant and the person who answered the door. After the door was shut, there were three gunshots. The defendant then returned to the car. Other testimony suggested that he was looking for certain people in the apartment. The police found bullet holes in and above the front door, as well as in the apartment.

Evaluation of PTSD in Maryland Assault Case

May 23, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In a recent Maryland case, a criminal defendant had fired a rifle towards his ex-girlfriend in a parking garage. She was hiding behind her car. The defendant had moved into his girlfriend’s apartment complex in Bethesda. She wanted to take things more slowly, but he took an apartment in the floor above hers in the same building. He was disappointed by the fact that she didn’t help him move in, and she was not happy about how fast things were progressing. She broke up with him shortly thereafter.

A few nights after that, the defendant saw the victim leaving her place with a male friend. He texted her. He came to her apartment around midnight when she and the friend came back. He didn’t get that she had broken up with him and stayed in the hallway even after they were done talking. She was scared to be alone, so the friend stayed and the defendant texted her through the night.

The victim found that somebody had vandalized her car the night before. The police responded to the call and advised her to get a no-contact order against the defendant. The defendant asked her to withdraw the no-contact order and continued to text her. Continue reading

Questions About Racial Bias During Maryland Voir Dire

May 12, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A recent case involved murder, assault, and the use of a handgun in a violent crime. The defendant was sentenced to 53 years of incarceration. The victim was shot outside his home as he was coming back from church with his wife. He survived and at trial identified the defendant as the person who shot him.

The defendant had a child with the victim’s daughter. The State presented a theory that the defendant shot the victim because he blamed him for an adverse custody determination. Before trial started, the defendant’s attorney submitted proposed questions for voir dire. Voir dire is the process by which a jury is selected.

One of the proposed questions referred to the fact that the defendant was African-American and asked the juror to answer whether that fact would impact his or her ability to be fair and impartial. There were 72 prospective jurors. Continue reading

“Not Criminally Responsible” and Mental Health in Maryland

March 10, 2014 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In a recent case, a man was found guilty of assault. The court decided he was not criminal responsible and committed him to the Department of Health and Mental Health under Maryland Code (1994 Repl. Vol.) § 12-111 of the Health-General Article.

The court issued an order of conditional release, but he was subsequently indicted for robbery, assault and use of a handgun while committing a felony or violent crime. The judge rescinded the order of conditional release and recommitted him to Department of Health and Mental Health (DHMH).

A jury found the defendant guilty but not criminally responsible for the robbery and use of handgun charges. The court recommitted him to the care of DHMH. Another conditional release haring was held and the circuit court granted the defendant’s request for conditional release. Continue reading

Is Self-Defense an Available Defense in a Charge of Affray?

November 18, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

What is an “affray?” An affray in Maryland happens when two people fight (either with each other’s consent or without) in a public place “to the terror of the people.” The elements of “public place” and “terror of the people” can be controversial because it begs the question of whether there can be a terror of the people if two people fight in a public place without anyone else around. In a recent case, an appellate court considered whether a circuit court erred in its jury instruction regarding self-defense in an affray case.

The case arose when a husband and wife entertained family at a Fourth of July cookout on their back porch. The defendant called the wife’s sister and learning of the cookout, drove over. The sister left with her kids after the defendant’s arrival, but he stayed. The witnesses differed in what happened next. But they all agreed significant alcohol consumption occurred.

The husband and the defendant started a playful wrestling match that turned into a fistfight that was eventually broken up. The wife tripped and the husband believed the defendant caused her fall. The husband got angry that the defendant wouldn’t shake his hand and kicked the defendant’s moped and swung at the defendant first. However, the defendant punched him until he fell unconscious. The husband died. Continue reading

When May a Maryland Court Vacate a Guilty Plea?

July 22, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

What is a plea agreement? Essentially it is a contract between a criminal defendant and the State in which the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on a charge. The court may accept or reject the agreement, but if it approves the agreement it must follow the terms and interpret it such that the integrity of the agreement is preserved.

Plea agreements are advantageous for some defendants. They can reduce exposure, remove or limit the stress of hearings and trials, and start the correctional process. They can also be advantageous for the State because trials are expensive and if there is no significant issue of guilt, it does not make sense to expend judicial and prosecutorial resources on them.

When is a Maryland court allowed to vacate a guilty plea? There are occasions in which a guilty plea may be vacated by the court. One reason for vacating a guilty plea is that the defendant obtained the plea agreement via fraud or misrepresentation. This occurs, for example, when a defendant agrees to be honest with the government about his involvement, but instead lies and withholds information. Continue reading

The Voluntary Intoxication Instruction in Maryland

June 25, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Usually a defendant cannot blame drunkenness or intoxication for his or her criminal conduct. However, in Maryland, as in other states, a defendant can ask that the jury receive a voluntary intoxication instruction when he or she is charged with a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime is one in which the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to act in such a way that he or she would cause a specific result. One such crime is first-degree murder.

This instruction is appropriate if a defendant can show evidence of “great intoxication” sufficient to negate the element of specific intent. It is not enough for the defense to show the judge that a defendant drank alcohol before performing the actions that led to a criminal charge. Rather, the evidence of great intoxication must be sufficient for the judge to allow a jury to find that he did not have the necessary mental faculties to act with specific intent. Continue reading

Maryland appellate court rules assault may occur even when victims are not present

May 10, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Snyder v. State, the Maryland appellate court recently considered two indictments. In the first case, the defendant was indicted on thirty-seven counts based on shootings that took place at his neighbor’s properties. In the second indictment (called by the court, the “neighbor case”), the defendant was charged with similar violations, including assault, which happened on his former employer’s property.

In the second of two cases, the defendant appealed a first and second-degree assault conviction. The State showed at trial that the defendant went to the neighborhood of the victims. The victims’ neighbor saw the defendant’s pick-up truck there at 2:30 a.m. and heard gunshots. The neighbor saw the defendant leaving the victims’ house carrying firearms and also saw the defendant fire three gunshots at the victims’ house before leaving.

The male victim testified he had been away at the time of these events. When he got home, his windows had been shot out, the front door was off, and police were in the driveway. Similar events occurred in the other case, except the victims were actually home while the defendant was acting this way. Continue reading

Maryland Court Rules No Double Jeopardy Attaches At Protective Order Hearing

April 3, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled in Tubaya v. State of Maryland, an appeal based on the prohibition against double jeopardy in our Constitution. The case arose on June 27, 2011, when Valencia Tubaya pushed into the home of her older parents. She held a “sharp metal object” against her mother’s neck and threatened that she would cut the woman’s dialysis tubes out. When the father demanded that his daughter stop, she pushed him back into the chair where he’d been seated. She spoke to her parents for a few minutes then left.

Later that day, the mother and her other daughter spoke to police officers. They also filed an application for a statement of charges and a petition for a protective order against Valencia. The State of Maryland was not a party to the protective order proceedings. In July 2011, the District Court issued a number of temporary protective orders. Later in August, however, they denied a final protective order on the grounds that there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence that the assault happened.

Meanwhile, the state moved forward with prosecuting Valencia’s criminal case. Valencia moved to dismiss the criminal charges against her, arguing that the District Court’s August 2011 denial of a final protective order created collateral estoppel such that the state could no longer prosecute the question of whether the assault had actually occurred.