Correll v. State
81 A.3d 600
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Victim Christopher Mader was found shot in his car after leaving Bennigan’s on Nov. 25, 2004; appellant Correll was arrested in 2010 and tried for murder, robbery, conspiracy, and two handgun counts.
- Key prosecution witnesses: jailhouse informant Kevin Smith (recounted Correll’s confession), Shawn Myers and James Chaney (eyewitnesses/participants with inconsistent accounts and plea benefits/threats), and Adrian Smith (jail cellmate who heard confessions).
- Additional corroboration: identifications placing Correll at Bennigan’s, testimony that Correll was picked up near the crime scene shortly after the shooting, and a stipulation that the recovered bullet could have been fired from certain pistols.
- Defense moved for acquittal on sufficiency grounds; also sought broad impeachment of State witnesses (prior sex‑offender registration conviction, old uncharged bad act, pending federal indictment) and moved to bar Adrian Smith for late discovery.
- Trial court denied acquittal and denial motions; jury convicted on all counts; on appeal the court reviewed sufficiency, limits on cross‑examination, discovery sanction denial, prosecutor remarks (unpreserved), and omitted jury instructions (unpreserved/plain‑error review).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Correll) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Testimony was unreliable (accomplices, jailhouse informants), lack of corroboration, no proof of handgun or possession | Evidence, when viewed favorably to verdict, was sufficient: confessions, eyewitness identifications, pickup near scene, stipulation linking bullet to pistols | Affirmed — rational jurors could find elements beyond reasonable doubt; accomplice corroboration satisfied or witnesses not necessarily accomplices; handgun inference permissible |
| Scope of cross‑examination: impeachment with failure‑to‑register conviction (Myers) | Conviction shows untrustworthiness and should be admitted to impeach credibility | Failure‑to‑register is not an "infamous" or crimen falsi offense under Rule 5‑609; trial court properly excluded it | Affirmed — offense not impeachable under 5‑609; even if admissible, court reasonably limited scope given other impeachment material |
| Scope of cross‑examination: prior uncharged bad act >15 yrs (Adrian Smith) | Court erred by treating Rule 5‑608 evidence as time‑barred and refusing inquiry | Court could consider age and probative value; 20‑year‑old uncharged act insufficiently probative | Affirmed — judge acted within wide discretion to exclude stale, nonconviction misconduct as nonprobative |
| Scope of cross‑examination: pending federal indictment and invocation of Fifth (Kevin Smith) | Allowing invocation prevented effective impeachment and required striking testimony | Defense requested the procedure and obtained invocation in front of jury and adverse‑inference instruction | Affirmed — issue not preserved (defense sought the approach); court properly allowed invocation and jury instruction; motion to strike denied |
| Discovery sanction for late disclosure of Adrian Smith materials | State’s late disclosure (reports, 3,000 recordings) prejudiced defense and required barring witness | Disclosure was due to oversight, State acted in good faith, materials produced and prejudice ameliorated; barring is extreme | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; considered reasons, prejudice, curative measures, and opted for less severe remedy |
| Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in opening/closing | Prosecutor vouched, attacked defense counsel, misrepresented evidence — prejudicial | Remarks unpreserved (no contemporaneous objection) | Not reviewed — unpreserved; defendant didn’t object at or immediately after argument, so appellate review denied |
| Omitted jury instructions (impeachment by prior conviction, number of witnesses, identification) | Failure to give instructions, and prosecutor’s misstatement, warrant reversal | Instructions objections were not made after charge; issues unpreserved | Not reviewed on merits — unpreserved; plain‑error review denied because omissions were not compelling or extraordinary |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutionally mandated standard for sufficiency review)
- Woods v. State, 315 Md. 591 (accomplice corroboration requires evidence that tends to identify accused or show participation)
- Westpoint v. State, 404 Md. 455 (test for whether prior conviction bears on credibility: elements must show deceitfulness/untruthfulness)
- Pantazes v. State, 376 Md. 661 (scope of cross‑examination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557 (factors for discovery‑sanction discretion and preference for least severe remedy)