Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog
Many people facing a criminal trial have a history with the system. Often, prosecutors want to use that criminal history to bolster their case. The fact that you have a criminal past does not prove that you committed a specific crime, and, recognizing that, the law substantially limits when the state can use your past criminal violations in your current case. If you have a criminal history and are currently facing charges, an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer can provide essential aid in protecting your right to a fair trial.
Take, for example, the criminal trial of S.M. from Baltimore. After S.M. fled from Baltimore police detectives who questioned him about a nearby car, the detectives opened the vehicle and found a loaded handgun. The state brought criminal charges because the man was disqualified from possessing a firearm.
In the gun case, the prosecution wanted to present to the jury evidence that, in 2017, the state convicted the man of possessing a large amount of drugs in violation of Section 5-612 of the Criminal Code.
After the jury found S.M. guilty, he appealed, arguing that the use of his previous drug conviction deprived him of a fair trial. The man contended that the jury should not have heard about the 2017 crime because it did not reflect that he lacked credibility. The state, on the other hand, contended that a conviction for “volume possession” of drugs demonstrated inherent deceitfulness and was “categorically relevant as to credibility.”
Maryland has a rule that specifically addresses these kinds of situations. Generally, the previous crime must be relevant to the accused’s credibility. Alternatively, if the conviction’s tendency to prove or disprove some important fact outweighs its tendency to bias the jury against the accused, then it is admissible. Additionally, the law bars the state from using convictions that occurred more than 15 years ago.
The Appellate Court concluded that the drug conviction was not admissible under this state’s rules. Some crimes, like treason, perjury, fraud, and forgery, are almost always admissible because they reflect deceitfulness and a lack of honesty.
Simple possession of drugs is not admissible, but possession with an intent to distribute is allowed. The court concluded that the admissibility of possession of a “large amount” under Section 6-612 was something neither it nor the Supreme Court had addressed before.
Whether or Not One is ‘Unworthy of Belief’
In differentiating an allowable conviction versus one that the state cannot use, the court said that a crime must show that the accused is “unworthy of belief.” Expanding on that, the court explained that “a crime tends to show that the offender is unworthy of belief, if the perpetrator ‘lives a life of secrecy’ and engages in ‘dissembling in the course of [the crime], being prepared to say whatever is required by the demands of the moment, whether the truth or a lie.’”
Maryland’s crime of possessing a “large amount” of drugs does not involve an intent to distribute. It is not an explicit element of the crime, and it is not presumed. Because of that lack of intent to distribute, the court reasoned that large-amount possession was more akin to simple possession (which is not admissible) than to crimes for manufacturing or distribution (which are admissible).
In your criminal trial, many things go into ensuring fairness. One major one is keeping out harmful evidence that the law says the jury should not hear. Doing that often requires in-depth knowledge of the law and the criminal rules. If you are facing charges, talk to the experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC. We have spent years fighting for the rights of people like you and are ready to get started on your case. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to schedule your consultation.