Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Maryland Court Rules Call Records Inadmissible as Hearsay

July 23, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Each state enacts rules of evidence that govern the admissibility of various kinds of information and testimony during a court proceeding. Most people have heard of something called “hearsay” – a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is typically inadmissible, subject to certain enumerated exceptions. In any criminal case, no matter what the charges, it is important to fully understand the rules of evidence and how they can strengthen one’s defense. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is extremely important that you contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

A recent Maryland case illustrates how knowledge of the hearsay rules can help a person successfully appeal a criminal conviction. In Baker v. State of Maryland, Michael Edward Baker was convicted of various sex offenses, second-degree assault, and impersonating a police officer. According to the victim’s testimony, on July 18, 2013, she had been “prostituting,” and she received a cell phone call from the defendant/appellant seeking to set up a time to meet her. When they met, the defendant showed her a police badge, told her he was a police officer, and forced her to perform certain sexual acts against her will. The victim alleged that the defendant raped her.

Maryland Court Rules Evidence Sufficient to Support “Possession” of Contraband Drug Convictions

July 8, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The outcome of a criminal case often depends in large part on the sufficiency of the evidence in light of established Maryland law. There are many defenses that may be asserted with respect to allegedly incriminating evidence. When a person is charged with criminal possession of contraband, courts have held that such possession may be constructive (rather than actual) or joint (rather than exclusive). These distinctions are important and can dramatically affect the result of a criminal case. A person charged with criminal possession of any controlled dangerous substance must take the matter very seriously and contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to prepare a strong defense.

In a recent case, Cerrato-Molina v. State, a jury convicted the appellant of possession of marijuana, crack cocaine, and cocaine hydrochloride. The appellant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to submit the case to the jury. Here, a Maryland Detective was in a marked police vehicle when he noticed two men drinking beer in a white Jeep that was parked with the engine running. As the Detective turned his vehicle around and came up behind the Jeep, it took off suddenly, traveling at a “high rate of speed” through a residential area. As the Detective followed the Jeep, he noticed objects flying out of the front passenger window. A short while later, the Jeep ran up onto a curb and came to a halt. The Detective arrested the driver and passenger, the appellant in this case.

Upon searching the path of the vehicle for the objects that were thrown out of the window, the Detective found three baggies containing suspected drugs that were later submitted to a lab and determined to contain controlled dangerous substances. In challenging the convictions, the appellant argued that there was no direct evidence that he possessed the drugs found on the street. The court of appeals, however, pointed to established Maryland case law that possession need not be “sole possession” but may be joint possession and joint control in several persons. Accordingly, courts have identified the following list of criteria to determine if joint possession exists: 1) proximity between the defendant and the contraband; 2) whether the contraband was in view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant; 3) the ownership or possessory right in the automobile or premises in which the item is found; or 4) circumstances under which a reasonable inference could be made that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual enjoyment and use of the contraband.

Maryland Court Finds Evidence Sufficient To Support Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Convictions

June 19, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Under Maryland law, crimes are divided into two groups: misdemeanors and felonies. Most people know and understand that a felony is considered more serious and typically accompanied by a longer sentence. But a conviction of either type of crime can affect a person’s life in many ways. A common misdemeanor is driving while under the influence of alcohol. A person may be arrested or charged with this crime based upon proof that the person was actually witnessed driving under the influence in the present tense, or based upon a “permitted inference” that he or she drove under the influence in the past tense. When the arrest, charge, or conviction is based on the latter situation, the question of proof can be a bit tricky. Anyone who is arrested or charged with driving under the influence is strongly encouraged to contact a Maryland criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling DUI cases.

In a recent Maryland case, Harding v. State, a jury convicted Todd Harding of driving under the influence, refusing to take a breath alcohol test, and driving with a suspended license. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to send the case to the jury. Specifically, the appellant argued that the evidence was not legally sufficient as to whether he had actually been driving the pickup truck in which he was found. In this case, Baltimore City firefighters responded to a call reporting a vehicle accident with “people trapped.” According to the firefighters who were first on the scene, it appeared that the moving vehicle had jumped the curb and gone into the bushes as it came to a sudden stop. One firefighter in particular noted that the appellant was sitting at the driver’s wheel, slumped over, and seemed intoxicated. He further observed that the truck was still running and had white smoke coming out of it. An officer also witnessed the appellant get out of the car and stagger on the sidewalk. He refused a field sobriety test and was arrested and taken to the police station, where he refused a breath alcohol test.

Maryland’s Highest Court Reviews Legality of Criminal Sentence Below a Binding Plea Agreement

June 8, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Most states have court rules and laws that govern the preparation and enforceability of a plea agreement between a criminal defendant and the State. According to case law, plea agreements play a “crucial role” in the Maryland criminal justice system. Part of the allure of a plea agreement is the level of certainty it provides to the person charged with a crime, as well as to the State. Furthermore, the use of plea agreements (rather than a trial) serves to reduce the overcrowding of courts by disposing of cases in an more efficient manner. It is important to ensure that any applicable legal rules are complied with in order to protect one’s rights at this very important stage, as well as throughout the whole criminal process. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

The highest court in Maryland recently addressed the legality of a criminal sentence that is below the terms of the binding plea agreement. In this case, a grand jury indicted Tommy Garcia Bonilla back in 1989 on two counts of first-degree murder as well as other serious crimes. Count I and Count III represented the two separate murder charges. In 1990, Bonilla and the State entered into a binding plea agreement with the following terms. If called upon by the State, Bonilla would testify against one of his co-defendants and would plead guilty to Counts I and III. In return, the State agreed that Bonilla would receive a sentence of life imprisonment on Count III, and a consecutive life imprisonment sentence with all but 20 years suspended on Count I.

Maryland Court Upholds Admission of Evidence of Other Crimes in Attempted Second-Degree Murder Case

May 26, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A person who is arrested or charged with a criminal offense will be entitled to many legal protections throughout the criminal proceedings. It is important to understand the extent of one’s legal rights at each stage of the process. Once a case reaches trial, there are many local state rules of evidence that a court may enforce in order to protect the person charged with a crime. One important example concerns the State’s use of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts in the pursuit of a conviction. Maryland law is fairly clear on this issue. Evidence of prior criminal acts may not be introduced to prove the guilt of the offense for which the defendant is on trial. As with many evidence rules, there are certain exceptions, the applicability of which will depend on the circumstances of the case. If you have any questions regarding a criminal arrest or charge, it is essential that you contact a Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to protect your rights.

In a recent case, Page v. State of Maryland, Jamal Marcus Page appealed his conviction, arguing (among other things) that the court erred in allowing evidence of an alleged “other assault,” committed by Page against the victim approximately two weeks prior to the charged offense. According to the facts revealed at trial, the victim — Rubearth Nichols — claimed that Page shot him six times and then ran away. He further testified that he had known Page for approximately nine or ten years and identified him, both in and out of court. Nichols further testified that, two weeks before this shooting, he and Page had argued over money and that Page attempted to shoot him then, but his gun jammed. The jury convicted Page of attempted second-degree murder and the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence (among other crimes). He was sentenced to 50 years of incarceration, with 15 years suspended.

Maryland Court of Appeals Addresses Allocation of Pension Benefits in Divorce

May 22, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Maryland Court Rejects State’s Effort To Retry Second-Degree Felony Murder Charge

May 11, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Under Maryland criminal law, a murder that is not “in the first degree” is considered to be “in the second degree.” And in accordance with established case law, there are four types of second-degree murder. In order to reach a conviction under one type or another, the state must prove the specific elements, depending on the charges. One of the four categories is second-degree felony murder. Under state law, an underlying felony can warrant a conviction for second-degree felony murder when it is committed in a way that is “dangerous to life.” Like many criminal provisions, the language may be subject to interpretation and application by the court. If you have been arrested or charged with any crime, it is important to be clear about the charges against you and to work quickly to protect your rights and freedom. You are encouraged to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

In a recent criminal case, the victim was allegedly beaten, robbed, and shot by a group of men while he was on his way home from work. Tyshon Jones was one of the four men accused of taking part in these crimes. A jury found him not guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder with the intent to inflict serious bodily harm, armed robbery, and robbery. The jury, however, was unable to reach a verdict regarding the charges of first-degree felony murder and the use of a handgun during the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The court granted a mistrial with respect to the last two charges.

Maryland’s Highest Court Decides Felony Murder Sentencing Issue

April 27, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the “double jeopardy clause,” protects a person charged with a crime against multiple punishments for the same offense. Courts are expected to rule on issues that come before them with an eye to ensuring that a criminal defendant’s Constitutional rights are sufficiently protected. The punishment phase of a criminal trial takes place during sentencing. One way to protect against double jeopardy is through the “merger” of sentences. Like most phases of a criminal trial, there are rules and legal requirements governing the possibility of merging sentences. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is extremely important that you contact an experienced Maryland criminal attorney as soon as possible.

In a recent case emerging from Maryland’s highest court, the State appealed the court of appeals’ decision to merge a defendant’s sentences for all predicate felony convictions during the sentencing phase of a felony murder conviction. Here, the State alleged that the defendant (and three others) kidnapped another person, placed him in a vehicle, and tried to get money from him. The State further alleged that one of the four people shot and killed the victim when he attempted to escape. The four were charged with multiple crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence or felony, and unlawfully carrying, wearing, or transporting a handgun.

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 Decision Not to Merge Criminal Sentences

April 8, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Throughout a criminal case, from an arrest to a possible conviction and sentencing, the person charged with a crime has multiple opportunities to challenge or defend against the charges, conviction, and ultimate sentence. The United States Constitution guarantees citizens certain protections, covering a broad range of rights. One such right protects a person from multiple punishments (sentences) and trials for the same offense. While the Maryland Constitution does not have this “double jeopardy” provision, case law has upheld these protective principles. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who fully understands the various laws and defenses applicable to your situation.

In a recent Maryland case, a man was convicted of multiple crimes: robbery with a dangerous weapon, second-degree assault, theft of property valued less than $1,000, and representing a “destructive device” and making a false statement about that device. The court sentenced him to incarceration for two separate and consecutive terms: 20 years for robbery with a dangerous weapon and 10 years for making a false statement about a destructive device. According to the evidence at trial, during the robbery of a shoe store, the defendant claimed that he had a gun and stole money and boots. He allegedly presented the store clerk with a note stating that there was a bomb in a box and that she should wait 30 minutes before calling the police (after he left), or else he would blow up the store.