Appraicio v. State, 63 A.3d 599

A Montgomery County Circuit Court convicted Aparicio of second‑degree assault based on Moran’s testimony, 911 calls, and Moran’s videotaped injuries; there was no police report or police testimony introduced at trial.
The defense argued Moran’s account was uncorroborated and suggested the lack of police evidence supported her fabrication.
During deliberations, the jury asked if it could consider the absence of a police report or police testimony; the court constrained them to decide based on evidence presented, defining evidence as witness testimony, physical items, and exhibits.
The circuit court’s supplemental instruction warned against considering non‑presented matters and urged reliance on what was in evidence, with allowance for reasonable inferences from the jury’s own experiences.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on the first count and acquitted on the second; Aparicio appealed, challenging the juror instruction as abusive discretion; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in answering the jury’s lack‑of‑evidence question	Aparicio contends the court should have allowed consideration of lack of police evidence	State argues the response was proper, not instructing jurors to ignore the absence of evidence	No abuse of discretion; instruction permissible and not coercive

Baby v. State, 404 Md. 202 (Md. 2008) (directed trial courts to answer juror questions about major issues; purely legal questions require direct answers)
Eley v. State, 288 Md. 548 (Md. 1980) (distinguishes comment on facts not in evidence from discussing strength or lack of evidence)
Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (Md. 2011) (cautions against ‘no duty’/anti‑CSI instructions; better practice to avoid signaling lack of required methods)
Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (Md. 2011) (unfavorable anti‑CSI instruction deemed improper where unrelated to case)
Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 (Md. 1999) (instructions on facts/inferences generally not required; risk of overemphasis on particular evidence)
Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 (Md. 1976) (bench‑side remarks carry weight; should avoid implying existence of facts)
Cruz v. State, 407 Md. 202 (Md. 2009) (supplemental jury instructions may be appropriate to clarify central issues)
Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332 (Md. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions)
Carroll v. State, 428 Md. 679 (Md. 2012) (reasonable doubt instruction deemed constitutionally sufficient)