Alexis v. State
61 A.3d 104
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Appellant Jamaal Garvin Alexis was convicted in consolidated Prince George’s County trials for murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit theft, and related offenses, with separate convictions in CT08-0504X and CT09-1040B.
- The circuit court suppressed defense counsel Tun due to conflicts arising from Tun’s prior representation of a State witness, Jalloh, and ordered Tun’s appearance struck.
- The State moved to admit grand jury testimony of Ennels, which the circuit court admitted over defense objection, finding it admissible under evidentiary rules given the defendant’s alleged efforts to preclude Ennels’ testimony.
- Jalloh, who had testified at a hearing on the admission of Ennels’s testimony, refused to testify at trial; the court admitted his prior testimony under Rule 5-804(b)(1) after determining Jalloh was unavailable.
- The State introduced Ennels’s grand jury testimony through the transcript, and other witnesses testified about the October 7, 2008 Nalley Road murders and related events, including Edmonds, Lammons, Barnes, and fingerprint/DNA evidence.
- At sentencing, the court declined to merger-sentence two solicitations (retaliation and prevention of testifying) arising from separate statutes, imposing consecutive sentences for two solicitation counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the court's disqualification of defense counsel proper? | Alexis argues conflict warranted removal to protect fairness and prevent prejudice. | Alexis contends right to counsel of choice or waivers should prevail; local factors insufficient to disqualify. | No abuse; court properly disqualified counsel due to significant conflict. |
| May the State admit Jalloh’s prior testimony where Jalloh refused to testify at trial? | State rule allows admission as former testimony if unavailability and motive exist; defense challenges unavailability/motion hearing scope. | Waiver and cross-examination opportunities at trial were insufficient to satisfy Rule 5-804(b). | Admissible; Jalloh unavailable and defense had opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine. |
| Was Ennels’s grand jury testimony admissible as procured unavailability evidence under CJ.P. 10-901? | State complied with 10-901 by showing Alexis conspired to procure unavailability. | Argument that there was insufficient direct/clear evidence of solicitation to procure unavailability. | Admissible; clear and convincing evidence supported procurement of unavailability. |
| Did the court correctly apply merger/dual punishment rules to two solicitation convictions? | Two solicitations had separate intents and targets; not to merge under Blockburger or lenity. | There was a single incitement; multiple punishments should merge. | Sentences not merged; two separate solicitations remain separate convictions with permissible consecutive sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (presumption in favor of counsel of choice may be overcome by serious potential for conflict)
- Goldsberry v. State, 419 Md. 100 (2011) (framework for disqualifying counsel of choice with conflict; require hearing and balancing factors)
- MD v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (prospective vs retroactive application of new rules; Zenobia Owens decisions guidance)
- Colkley v. State, 204 Md.App. 593 (2012) (clear and convincing evidence standard for procurement of witness unavailability)
- Williams v. State, 416 Md. 670 (2010) (former testimony admissibility and motive to develop testimony; cross-examination considerations)
- Morris v. State, 192 Md.App. 1 (2010) (merger/division of offenses when separate intents; legislative intent in punishment)
- Meyer v. State, 47 Md.App. 679 (1981) (solicitation multiple counts; evidentiary sufficiency for separate solicitations)