Diggs v. State
213 Md. App. 28
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Allen and Diggs were tried jointly in Montgomery County for home invasion and related crimes stemming from incidents on June 23–24, 2009.
- DNA evidence from crime-scene items was challenged: CODIS matches to Bangora and Debreau were excluded by the trial court at in limine; Strickman testified about the matches.
- Jackson pleaded guilty in a related plea deal and testified against Allen and Diggs; her plea terms were admitted at trial.
- The State presented surveillance video, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime scene and items recovered nearby.
- The court addressed multiple issues on appeal, including the admissibility of CODIS matches, DNA statistics, mistrial motions, opening statements, privilege claims, and accomplice liability.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings and judgments of conviction, with no reversible error found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CODIS match admissibility without confirmation | Allen, Diggs: CODIS matches to Bangora/Debreau are exculpatory and admissible. | State: § 2-510 bars trial use of CODIS matches without confirmatory testing; exclusion violated due process. | CODIS matches excluded; § 2-510 requires confirmatory testing before trial use. |
| DNA evidence and lack of population statistics | Strickman’s testimony on hat and shirt DNA should include population statistics variances. | Advances allow non-statistical expert opinion when random match probability is exceedingly small. | Hat DNA admissible without statistics under Young; shirt inconclusive but harmless. |
| Mistrial motions over improper questioning | Prosecutor’s questions bolstered Jackson; mistrial warranted. | No pervasive prejudice; objections cured by instruction; no mistrial due to questioning. | Mistrial motions denied; no reversible error. |
| Improper opening statement remark about unemployment | Plea for mistrial due to prejudicial employment-status remark. | Remark was improper but curable; not reversible error given curative instruction and corroborating evidence. | Not reversible error; curative instruction given and trial proceeded fairly. |
| Attorney-client privilege and attorney work product | Letter to mother alleged to be privileged work product; should be excluded. | Letter not protected by privilege or work product; disclosure allowed. | Letter not privileged or work product; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. State, 388 Md. 99 (Md. 2005) (allows certain DNA match evidence without population statistics when strong individualization exists)
- King v. State, 425 Md. 550 (Md. 2012) (CODIS match admissibility and need for confirmatory testing; use as prob. cause, not trial evidence)
- Kelly v. State, 392 Md. 511 (Md. 2006) (essential due process concerns in presenting testimony and witness confrontation)
- Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266 (Md. 1988) (limits on bolstering testimony with irrelevant or inadmissible material)
- Sheppard v. State, 312 Md. 118 (Md. 1988) (accomplice liability framework and scope of liability in multi-defendant crimes)
- Vitek v. State, 295 Md. 35 (Md. 1982) (restrictions on introducing inflammatory or prejudicial evidence through opening statements)