Cruz v. State, 155 A.3d 964

Defendant Jesus Garduno Cruz was convicted by a jury in Wicomico County of multiple offenses including first-degree rape; sentenced to 40 years on first-degree rape (other convictions merged).
Victim (Ms. F.) testified that Cruz abducted and raped her at gunpoint; she later escaped.
On cross-examination the victim admitted she was a heroin addict and had used heroin earlier that same morning.
Defense moved to strike the victim’s testimony as incompetent due to recent heroin use; trial court denied the motion after observing the witness and finding her responsive and not visibly under the influence.
Forensic DNA evidence tied Cruz to the victim and to a condom found near Cruz’s property.
On appeal Cruz argued the trial court erred in not striking the victim’s testimony; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding drug use alone does not render a witness incompetent absent impairment of capacity to observe, remember, recount, or understand the duty to tell the truth.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency of witness who used heroin same day	Victim’s heroin use rendered her incompetent to testify; testimony should be struck	Trial court observed witness, found her responsive; drug use affects credibility not competency	Denied — drug use alone does not make a witness incompetent; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to strike	(same)	Trial court’s on-the-record observations supported its discretion	No abuse of discretion; credibility for jury

Perry v. State, 381 Md. 138 (Court of Appeals of Md.) (sets Maryland competency standard: capacity to observe, recollect, recount, and understand duty to tell the truth)
Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487 (Court of Appeals of Md.) (witness’ unfavorable background and drug use present credibility issues, not competency, when capacity is intact)
U.S. ex rel. Lemon v. Pate, 427 F.2d 1010 (7th Cir. 1970) (addiction and contemporaneous narcotics use go to credibility where judge, having observed witness, finds competency)
Fox v. State, 491 P.2d 35 (Nev. 1971) (witness under influence not per se incompetent unless so impaired as to prevent observation or coherent testimony)
State v. Moore, 213 P.3d 150 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (drug influence does not bar testimony unless impairment prevents coherent responses)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 511 S.W.2d 209 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974) (medication or drug use affects credibility, not competency)
Lyba v. State, 321 Md. 564 (Court of Appeals of Md.) (defense may probe degree of drug influence to challenge credibility)