178 A.3d 674
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- In December 2014 four Baltimore officers responded to a silent-alarm burglary; Officers Smith and Leary fired at suspect Michael Johansen as he opened a side door and reached toward his waistband. Ten–twenty seconds after those shots, Officer Wesley Cagle emerged from an alley, exchanged words with Johansen, and shot him once in the groin. Johansen testified Cagle called him a “piece of sh*t” before shooting.
- Cagle was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or crime of violence; he was acquitted of attempted murder charges. He appealed raising multiple evidentiary and sentencing issues.
- Cagle argued his use of force was reasonable because he believed Johansen was armed; the State emphasized Cagle approached after the immediate threat had ended and intended to shoot him.
- The trial court excluded pretrial public statements by the Baltimore State’s Attorney that two other officers acted reasonably, barred certain video excerpts during closing, allowed probing cross-examination to show bias of the defense expert, and permitted impeachment about Cagle’s unit (VCID) after Cagle testified about awards.
- Cagle also challenged application of Md. Crim. Law § 4-204 (use of a firearm in commission of felony/crime of violence) to on-duty officers and argued double jeopardy, and sought to question Officer Leary about alleged bias based on an unadmitted pretrial statement by Johansen.
Issues
| Issue | Cagle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree assault and firearm-use convictions | Evidence was insufficient; Cagle reasonably believed suspect was armed (mistaken belief line) | Claim not preserved for those counts; viewing evidence most favorably to State supports convictions | Conviction upheld — victim testimony sufficient to support both convictions |
| Admissibility of State’s Attorney Mosby’s pretrial statements | Statements that other officers acted reasonably were relevant to show Cagle’s conduct was reasonable | Statements were post-event, Mosby lacked personal knowledge and were offered to prove a negative; irrelevant hearsay | Exclusion affirmed as irrelevant |
| Cross-examination of defense use-of-force expert (bias) | Questions about unrelated case (Torres) and expert’s video were irrelevant and prejudicial | Questions probative of expert’s bias toward police and credibility | Trial court did not abuse discretion; broad latitude to probe bias |
| Cross-examination re: VCID nicknames / character evidence | References to VCID nicknames ("cowboys") were irrelevant and prejudicial | Cagle opened the door by testifying to awards and distinguished service; rebuttal permitted | Admission of such questioning harmless; court did not err |
| Application of §4-204 to on-duty officer and double jeopardy | §4-204 targeted unlawful handgun use; lawful possession by officer should be excluded; separate sentence violates double jeopardy | Statute plainly punishes firearm use in commission of violent felony and adds penalty in addition to other convictions | §4-204 applies; separate sentence authorized and not double jeopardy |
| Excluding excerpts of in-court testimony in closing argument | Video would aid jury perception of credibility and demeanor | Court has discretion over scope of closing; counsel may verbally reference testimony | Exclusion of in-court excerpts affirmed; counsel could reference testimony verbally |
| Cross-examination of Officer Leary about alleged bias (aware he was accused of shooting) | Jurors should hear whether Leary knew of allegation that he shot groin to show bias | No factual foundation; the pretrial statement was not in evidence and Johansen clarified testimony | Court did not abuse discretion; questions were based on facts not in evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527 (defines standard for sufficiency review)
- Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174 (factfinder credibility deference on appeal)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness of force judged from perspective of reasonable officer)
- Martin v. State, 364 Md. 692 (broad trial-court discretion on scope of cross-examination)
- Leeks v. State, 110 Md. App. 543 (test for admitting bias inquiry on cross-examination)
- Calloway v. State, 414 Md. 616 (limits on restricting cross-exam about witness benefits when factual foundation exists)
- Martinez v. State, 416 Md. 418 (permitting inquiry into witness motives where foundation supports relevance)
- Roshchin, 446 Md. 128 (statutory construction begins with plain meaning)
- Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (legislature may impose separate punishment for aggravating circumstances)
- Riley v. State, 227 Md. App. 249 (applies §4-204 to on-duty officer who used firearm during violent felony)