COLKLEY & FIELDS v. State
42 A.3d 646
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- May 28, 2003 shootings in East Baltimore stem from a turf war between drug organizations (Horsey vs. Courts) with Colkley hired as a hit man and paid $10,000 after David Courts was killed.
- Retrial in 2010 resulted in Colkley’s convictions for second-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, illegal handgun use, and two handgun offenses; Fields was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, second-degree assault, and unlawful wearing or carrying a handgun.
- William Courts testified at the first trial but, due to a post-trial perjury conviction, was unavailable at retrial; the State sought to admit his first-trial testimony.
- Judge Russell denied admissibility of the first-trial testimony under Rule 5-804(b)(5) and related statutes, prompting appellate challenges by Colkley and Fields.
- Defense challenges included Missing Witness instruction, jury misbehavior claims, and the State’s handling of police internal affairs files; Colkley additionally challenged evidentiary rulings and sentencing math on remand.
- Colkley’s resentencing required vacating certain convictions and adjusting handgun-related sentences; Fields’ resentencing required alignment with the governing limits on increases in punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Courts' first-trial testimony | Courts' prior testimony was unavailable due to his later perjury conviction and should be admissible under 5-804(b)(5). | State failed to prove the requisite causal wrongdoing and/or that the witness’ unavailability was procured by the State. | Rule 5-804(b)(5) burden not met; courts' prior testimony properly excluded. |
| Missing Witness instruction | Missing witness inference should guide the jury when a key witness is unavailable. | Instruction was warranted given Courts' unavailability and potential impact on credibility. | Missing Witness instruction properly not given; no reversible error. |
| Jury misbehavior and mistrial requests | Jury conducted independent research; mistrial warranted. | Minimal misconduct occurred; corrective reinstructions sufficed; no prejudice. | No mistrial required; trial court’s reinstructions and discretionary denial of mistrial upheld. |
| Confidential IID files and impeachment | IID files about Massey/Snead should be disclosure-ready for impeachment. | IID materials are confidential personnel records; in camera review required and disclosure limited. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; in camera handling and Rule 5-608-impeachment restrictions upheld. |
| Resentencing legality and sentence merging | Remand should preserve and possibly increase sentences to reflect correct counts and merges. | Certain assaults lacked proper verdicts and handgun convictions should merge; increases on remand require justification. | Colkley: vacate two assault convictions; merge handgun counts; Fields: remand for resentencing consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. State, 172 Md.App. 496 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (addressed juror note and evidentiary issues on retrial)
- Florentine v. State, 184 Md. 335 (Md. 1945) (perjury disqualification standards for witnesses)
- State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458 (Md. 1965) (definition and scope of exculpatory evidence)
- Christensen v. State, 274 Md. 133 (Md. 1975) (missing witness rule formulation)
- Robinson v. State, 315 Md. 309 (Md. 1989) (limitations on missing witness inferences)
- Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 (Md. 1999) (discretionary nature of missing witness instruction)
- Dansbury v. State, 193 Md.App. 718 (Md. 2010) (trial court discretion on missing evidence instructions)
- Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557 (Md. 2007) (discovery obligations and disclosure scope)