Boston v. State
175 A.3d 836
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- On Nov. 29–30, 2014 Steven Matthews was violently attacked and shot; he later identified Jatwan Boston as one of the assailants. Boston was arrested Dec. 1; police recovered a Colt .45 on him and a .32 used in the attack from a co-defendant.
- On Nov. 30, Boston’s brother Jonte Lee (incarcerated at Baltimore County Detention Center) placed a call to his girlfriend; an automated message warned the call would be recorded.
- Lee asked his girlfriend to add Boston into the call; Boston was added after the recording announcement and made statements referring to the shooting and to leaving/changing contact information.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude the recorded call under the Maryland Wiretap Act (no consent), and later objected to admission of a .45 handgun and a Calvin Klein jacket (DNA) on relevance/chain-of-custody and prejudice grounds.
- Trial court admitted the recorded call, the .45 handgun, and the jacket; a jury convicted Boston of attempted first‑degree murder, armed robbery, burglary, firearm offenses and related counts. Boston appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Boston's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded jail call (Wiretap Act) | Recording of call violated Wiretap Act because Boston was added after the automated warning and did not consent | Recording lawful because inmate and initial recipient were warned/consented; detention center did not willfully intercept Boston’s portion | Admission affirmed: recording of Lee’s call was willful as to Lee but not willful as to Boston absent evidence detention center knew or controlled addition of third party |
| Relevance/prejudice of call (consciousness of guilt) | Call too vague and prejudicial; not tied to Matthews attack | Statements about victim being shot, "saying the name", and plans to leave show consciousness of guilt and are probative | Admission affirmed: content sufficiently linked to charged crimes and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Admission of .45 handgun found on Boston | Gun not linked to the crime; admission unfairly prejudicial | Gun was found near time of arrest, recovered with co-defendant’s weapon, and victim described multiple guns; reasonable probability of connection | Admission affirmed: reasonable probability of connection; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Admission of jacket (DNA) | Chain of custody inadequate because jacket left at scene and not seized until days later | Evidence showed jacket at scene, house was locked, and jacket recovered from hospital matched scene photos; only speculative tampering possible | Admission affirmed: prosecution established reasonable probability no tampering; gaps go to weight not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Deibler v. State, 365 Md. 185 (interpreting "willfully" as "intentionally‑purposefully" under Wiretap Act)
- Seal v. State, 447 Md. 64 (unlawfully intercepted communications inadmissible)
- State v. Maddox, 69 Md. App. 296 (consent by one party makes recording admissible against that party)
- Commonwealth v. Ennis, 439 Mass. 64 (corrections recording not "willful" as to third party added without facility knowledge/control)
- Commonwealth v. Boyarsky, 452 Mass. 700 (same principle where phone passed to third party; absence of jail knowledge/power negates willfulness)
- Aiken v. State, 101 Md. App. 557 (physical evidence need not be positively connected; reasonable probability standard)
- Grymes v. State, 202 Md. App. 70 (admission of firearm where facts created reasonable probability of connection)
- Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (limitations on inferences where alternative explanation would mislead jury)