126 A.3d 246
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Jovan Maurice Brice was arrested Aug. 2, 2011 and later convicted (July 18, 2014 jury) of illegal possession of a regulated firearm; sentenced to five years, with all but three suspended, plus five years probation.
- On July 21, 2011 Deputy Keith Jackson surveilled a gas station, followed Brice’s car, and stopped it after Brice made a right turn without signaling while Jackson was about one car length behind.
- During the stop officers found a magazine in a bag under the driver’s seat; Brice was briefly detained and released with a warning.
- Deputy Gregory Young obtained a search warrant for Brice’s apartment based on a firearms investigation and prior CDS convictions; the warrant execution (Aug. 2, 2011) produced a Lorcin .380 handgun, ammunition, and a magazine.
- During a custodial interview Brice admitted trading drugs for the gun, possessing it for years, and wiping it down. Brice moved to suppress evidence from the traffic stop and appealed after conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Brice (Appellant) Argument | State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by refusing to ask voir dire police‑witness questions | Requested questions (would you give more/less weight to police testimony?) were mandatory where State’s case relied on police testimony; failure requires new trial | Trial judge properly exercised discretion and Brice waived the questions when defense counsel said “No” to further voir dire; late retraction need not be allowed | Court held trial court abused its discretion in denying retraction of waiver and erred in refusing to pose police‑witness questions; reversible error — judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Admission of testimony about a prior “domestic disturbance” at appellant’s address | Testimony was an improper prior‑bad‑act reference (Rule 5‑404(b)) and prejudicial because it suggested violent propensity | The reference was vague (just a “domestic disturbance”) and did not indicate Brice’s involvement; not other‑crimes evidence as admitted | Court held admission not an abuse of discretion because the statement lacked sufficient specificity and linkage to Brice to qualify as prior bad act |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove illegal possession of regulated firearm (mens rea) | State failed to prove Brice knew he was disqualified from possessing a regulated firearm; knowledge of disqualification required | Statute and precedent require only that the defendant knowingly possess the firearm; Brice admitted possession, trading drugs for the gun, and wiping it down — jury could infer knowledge of disqualification | Court held evidence sufficient: mens rea satisfied by knowing possession and circumstantial inferences; conviction could be supported by a rational jury |
| Probable cause for traffic stop under Md. Transp. §21‑604 (no signal) | Stop lacked probable cause because State produced no evidence another vehicle might be affected by the un‑signaled turn | Deputy Jackson was directly behind (~one car length) and testified the turn took him off balance; statute requires only that any other vehicle might be affected | Court held deputy’s testimony was sufficient to establish a traffic violation and provide probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337 (1977) (trial court must ask whether jurors would give more credit to police testimony simply because of status when officers’ testimony is a principal part of State’s case)
- Bowie v. State, 324 Md. 1 (1991) (refusing police‑witness voir dire questions is reversible error; jurors must be asked about giving officers greater credibility because of their status)
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014) (where State’s witnesses are law‑enforcement‑centric, judge must ask about jurors’ law‑enforcement affiliations and feelings about the charged crime)
- Best v. State, 79 Md. App. 241 (1989) (a following police car may be a vehicle that could be affected by an un‑signaled turn; requirement to signal protects all vehicles in the vicinity)
- McNeal v. State, 200 Md. App. 510 (2011) (to satisfy mens rea for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, the State need only prove the defendant knew he possessed the handgun)