28 A.3d 129
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Donaldson was convicted in Baltimore County Circuit Court of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and use of a handgun in a crime of violence; sentences total consecutive terms including life without parole.
- The murder of James Falcoun occurred on March 22, 2009; Donaldson allegedly orchestrated the killing to retaliate over a relationship involving his girlfriend Joanne Severn.
- Donaldson recruited Eric Moss and Edward Harris to assist; Moss pled guilty to second-degree murder and Harris faced separate proceedings.
- Police conducted three in-custody interviews with Donaldson (March 23, March 31, and April 2, 2009); all were audio and video recorded without Donaldson being advised that recording was taking place or seeking consent.
- Miranda warnings were provided and waived; during the third interview Donaldson displayed heightened agitation, raising the defense objection to the videotaped portion.
- The trial court allowed the DVD recordings to be shown to the jury; the defense objected to the third interview’s emotional conduct and the lack of consent to recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting the interview videotapes violated due process | Donaldson contends recording without consent added prejudicial value. | Donaldson argues lack of consent to recording taints the proceedings. | No error; recordings properly admitted; harmless in light of total evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (police must warn that statements can be used against suspect)
- Lee v. State, 186 Md.App. 631 (Md. 2009) (waiver of Miranda rights valid; recording without consent not required to be disclosed)
- Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391 (Md. 1997) (admission of relevant evidence subject to prejudice balancing)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1975) (harmless error standard in evaluating trial impact)
- State v. Vandever, 314 N.J. Super. 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998) (non-consensual taping may be lawful under certain circumstances)