Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog
Evidence is clearly a key component of any criminal case. The state and the party charged seek to prove or disprove certain facts through the use of two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. It is commonly understood that direct evidence can prove a fact by itself, such as eyewitness testimony of a particular event or occurrence. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not directly prove the fact to be decided but instead is evidence of another fact or series of facts from which one may reach certain conclusions regarding the truth of the fact in question. Courts are often called upon to judge the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case. In order to present the appropriate evidence to defend against criminal charges, it is vitally important that you contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as early as possible in the proceedings.
Recently, a Maryland court addressed the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a burglary case. Here, a burglary took place at Martha Goodenough’s home in Frederick, Maryland. Among the items stolen were a computer, two T.V.s, three purses, and jewelry. That same day, Calvin Hall sold several pieces of Goodenough’s jewelry to a pawn shop in West Virginia. The owner of the shop recorded Hall’s driver’s license information at the time of the sale. Several times during the next two weeks, Hall returned to the same pawn shop to sell more of the jewelry. The police learned that the items sold matched the description of Goodenough’s jewelry and obtained a subpoena to review Hall’s telephone records.
A senior trooper with the Maryland State Police testified as an expert on reading and mapping cell phone data. Essentially, his testimony indicated that Hall’s cell phone “communicated” with cell towers near Goodenough’s home during the time of the alleged burglary. Based on the above circumstantial evidence, the jury convicted Hall of first-degree burglary and theft. Hall appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the he was the one who broke and entered the home. Specifically, he claimed that the two items of circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime – the fact that he had some of Goodenough’s jewelry around the time of the burglary, and the fact that his cell phone pinged the cell tower near her home – were insufficient to prove his guilt.
The court of appeals pointed out that the lack of direct evidence linking Hall to the crime does not mean that no reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the court noted that a conviction may be sustained either on the basis of one item of direct evidence or successive links of circumstantial evidence. Here, the court upheld the burglary conviction, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings. The court pointed to evidence that Hall was in possession of the recently stolen goods, in addition to the proof that his cell phone was in the vicinity of Goodenough’s home around the time of the burglary. Furthermore, a detective who has experience investigating burglaries and thefts testified that people who steal personal property frequently sell it out of state in an attempt to avoid being detected by local police.
The court addressed additional issues on appeal, unrelated to the concept of direct versus indirect evidence. Ultimately, the appellant’s conviction was upheld. This case exemplifies the need to understand the extent to which circumstantial and direct evidence may be used in a criminal trial. 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:
Highest Court in Maryland Denies Suppression of Cell Phone Data
Maryland’s Highest Court Disallows State’s Amendment of “Charging Document”