17 A.3d 781
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Davies served as finance manager of Immanuel Church; after resignation in July 2008, Church reviewed Capital One card charges and questioned unauthorized purchases.
- Church prepared a six-column spreadsheet identifying potentially unauthorized charges; police later seized items purchased with the card.
- State introduced two charts (State's Exhibits 3 and 4) derived from the spreadsheet; underlying authorization forms were not introduced at trial.
- Davies subpoenaed Church documents and the accounting firm’s records; circuit court quashed the subpoenas.
- Court admitted Exhibits 3 and 4 under Rule 5-1006, and allowed related testimony; Davies argued the underlying documents and hearsay basis were improper.
- On appeal, court held Rule 5-1006 prerequisites were not satisfied and the exhibits were inadmissible; reversed and remanded for retrial; addressed related subpoena and cross-examination issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of States Exhibits 3 and 4 | Davies: exhibits rely on inadmissible hearsay and mental impressions. | State: summaries admissible under Rule 5-1006 with underlying records available. | Exhibits 3 and 4 inadmissible; Rule 5-1006 prerequisites not met. |
| Subpoena of accounting firm records | Davies: subpoena necessary to probe bias/motive of witnesses. | State: records already produced; quash not error. | Circuit court abused discretion by quashing; right to impeachment undermined. |
| Cross-examination on bias and motive | Davies: should be allowed to show bias via prior criticisms and records. | State: limited cross-examination imposed by trial court. | Not adequately preserved; may pursue on retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bern-Shaw Ltd. P’ship v. Baltimore, 377 Md. 277 (2003) (admissibility and abuse of discretion standards in evidence)
- Hall v. UMMS, 398 Md. 67 (2007) (de novo review of legal questions including hearsay)
- J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Park & Planning, 368 Md. 71 (2002) (evidence admissibility and related standards)
- Snowden v. State, 156 Md.App. 139 (2004) (confrontation clause analysis; de novo review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation guarantees for testimonial evidence)
- Milton Co. v. Bentley Place, 121 Md.App. 100 (1998) (Rule 5-1006 and admissibility of summaries)
- Hutchinson v. State, 36 Md.App. 58 (1977) (inspection rights for records underlying summaries)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1976) (harmless error standard in criminal trials)