186 A.3d 170
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Donovan Bynes and Ruth Chavez were long-term partners with two children and engaged; they lived together at an apartment in Prince George’s County.
- On July 31, 2016, a domestic dispute followed dinner; Chavez slapped Bynes and later testified that Bynes hit her twice in the face.
- Bynes testified he did not hit Chavez until he grabbed her arms and pushed her out of the apartment after she slapped him and refused to leave; he denied fearing imminent serious harm.
- A jury convicted Bynes of second-degree assault; he received a ten-year sentence with all but three years suspended.
- On appeal Bynes argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on non-deadly self-defense and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying two motions for mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bynes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence generated a non-deadly self-defense instruction | No — record lacks any evidence that Bynes actually believed he was in imminent danger of bodily harm | Yes — testimony about Chavez initiating escalating confrontations and being the initial aggressor generated the instruction | Affirmed — no instruction required; defendant failed to produce any evidence of subjective belief of imminent harm |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial motions after two witness statements got through | Statements were minor, promptly cured by sustaining objections and curative instructions; no extraordinary prejudice shown | The statements were deliberate and highly prejudicial such that only a mistrial would cure the harm | Affirmed — denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; errors were not so egregious as to require aborting the trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. State, 83 Md. App. 237 (1990) (self-defense applies to non-homicidal assaultive crimes)
- Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408 (2000) (elements of non-deadly self-defense: actual belief, reasonableness, non‑aggressor, proportionality)
- Dashiell v. State, 214 Md. App. 684 (2013) (defendant entitled to instruction if any evidence that, if believed, supports self-defense)
- Faulkner v. State, 301 Md. 482 (1984) (evidence of defendant’s subjective belief can generate instruction on imperfect self‑defense)
- Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95 (2005) (each element of a defensive theory must have some evidentiary support to warrant instruction)
- State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351 (1993) (when deciding if self-defense is generated, focus on evidence of defendant’s mental state at the time)
- Molter v. State, 201 Md. App. 155 (2011) (mistrial is an extraordinary remedy; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Fleming v. State, 194 Md. App. 76 (2010) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice warranting mistrial; appellate review is for abuse of discretion)