Depending on the circumstances, a defendant charged in a criminal action may be able to assert several different defenses, some of which could result in a reduction of the severity of the charges or an acquittal. In a recent case, the defendant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and multiple related charges. While he raised two defenses, one related to prejudicial hearsay during the trial and another concerning an impermissibly suggestive identification, the court of appeals upheld the convictions. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is extremely important that you contact a Maryland criminal attorney who can review your case to properly respond to the allegations and raise any applicable defenses to protect your rights.
In the case described above, a man and his son arranged to meet the defendant to purchase two cell phones that were advertised on Craigslist. They brought two additional children with them to make the purchase. According to the facts of the case, instead of selling the phones, the defendant told them they were being robbed and pulled a gun out. Defendant allegedly shot one of the would-be purchasers. As the crime was being investigated, the victims identified the defendant as the assailant through photographic identifications. The defendant moved to suppress the identifications in a pre-trial hearing, arguing that the police used “impermissibly suggestive” procedures in securing the identifications. The motions court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and he was later convicted at trial of the assorted charges mentioned above.
The defendant appealed his convictions, alleging that the trial court admitted prejudicial hearsay improperly and that the motions court erred in denying his motion to suppress the photographic identifications. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. During the trial, a detective’s testimony improperly referenced certain out-of-court information that connected the appellant to the robbery. The court agreed that it was inadmissible hearsay, but appellant did not move to strike the testimony, nor did he ask for a mistrial. Furthermore, the court gave instructions to the jury that stricken testimony was not to be considered as evidence. The court of appeals concluded that appellant received all the relief that he sought with respect to the inadmissible testimony, and therefore there was no error.
Regarding the photographic identification, the defendant argued that the police procedures were impermissibly suggestive. Here, the police placed two of the children (who were at the scene of the crime) in one room together to review the photo book, which contained a photo of the defendant. While the court agreed that the police did not follow standard procedure by placing the children together to view the photo book, it did not rise to the level of impermissible suggestiveness that would warrant exclusion of the identifications. The court looked to a New York decision in concluding that, while the procedure was improper, it was not per se suggestive. Based on the circumstances surrounding the identification, the court held that the procedures were not impermissibly suggestive, thereby upholding the suppression court’s denial of the defendant’s motion.
Clearly, these are complicated issues that are highly dependent on the facts of a case and the evidence presented and argued. A criminal charge or arrest is a serious matter. Seeking the counsel of an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney is one of the most effective ways to approach any criminal investigation. If you are arrested or charged with a crime, our office will work diligently to develop the best strategy to defend your case. Contact us at 301-519-2801 or via our online form.
Related Blog Posts:
Maryland Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
Maryland Court Reverses Conviction for Failure to Ask Defense-Witness Question
Maryland Court’s Refusal to Give Requested Jury Instruction Upheld