DULYX v. State
40 A.3d 416
Md.2012Background
- Robbery at GameStop in Baltimore on May 24, 2008; two armed robbers took cash and abducted a customer.
- Getaway car linked to Petitioner's aunt; Petitioner had unfettered access to the car that day.
- Witness McIntyre identified Petitioner in a photo array; later recanted identification before trial.
- McIntyre retracted and then reaffirmed identification; State disclosed the recantation to defense.
- Suppression hearing restricted defense questioning to the photo array procedure; court admonished and limited scope.
- State sought to admit McIntyre’s suppression hearing testimony as former testimony under Md. Rule 5-804(b)(1); Petitioner was convicted after trial; Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed; Maryland Court granted certiorari and reversed, remanding for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McIntyre’s suppression hearing testimony qualifies as former testimony under Rule 5-804(b)(1). | Dulyx; motive and opportunity were substantially similar. | Dulyx; suppression court deprived him of a full and fair cross-examination. | No; admission was error for lack of adequate opportunity to cross-examine. |
| Whether the erroneous admission of former testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | The testimony linked Petitioner to the crime; no other direct driver identification. | There was no physical or live eyewitness identifying Petitioner at trial. | Not harmless; convictions must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 416 Md. 670 (Md. 2010) (opportunity to cross-examine must be full and fair to satisfy Rule 5-804(b)(1))
- Huffington v. State, 304 Md. 559 (Md. 1985) (cross-examination sufficiency for former testimony)
- Jones v. State, 395 Md. 97 (Md. 2006) (structure of pre-trial identification due process analysis)
- Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 (Md. 2009) (non-constitutional grounds can dispose of evidentiary issues)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings in criminal trials)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence)
- Fensterer v. Delaware, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (purpose of cross-examination to challenge reliability of testimony)
- Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (confrontation and reliability considerations in evidentiary development)