Francis v. Johnson
101 A.3d 494
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2014Background
- On May 4, 2009 three BCPD officers (Francis, Smith, Hellen) in an unmarked van detained and transported 15‑year‑old Michael Brian Johnson, Jr.; he alleges they assaulted him, broke his phone, removed his shoes/socks and dumped him in Howard County in the rain without means to get home.
- A jury awarded Johnson $465,000 in compensatory damages and $35,000 in punitive damages across constitutional and common‑law counts; the verdict allocated liability among the three officers differently by count.
- The trial court denied the officers’ motion to exclude testimony from Shawnquin Woodland (an earlier, similar encounter with the same officers about one hour prior) as relevant and admissible despite prejudice concerns.
- The trial court granted in part the officers’ post‑trial motions: it struck punitive damages against Hellen, found compensatory damages excessive, and conditioned a new trial on damages unless Johnson accepted remittitur reducing compensatory awards to $300,000; Johnson accepted a $165,000 remittitur.
- On appeal the officers challenged (1) admission of Woodland’s testimony, (2) the sufficiency and excessiveness/duplication of damages including LGTCA cap implications, and (3) whether evidence supported a finding of actual malice for punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Woodland testimony | Woodland’s testimony shows a common scheme/modus operandi, motive, intent, and negates consent | Inflammatory other‑acts evidence; irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Admission was proper: evidence was relevant to intent/consent and probative value outweighed unfair prejudice (no abuse of discretion). |
| LGTCA cap on damages | Johnson: officers found to have acted with actual malice so individual liability is not capped | Officers: LGTCA caps individual awards to $200,000 or limits city liability | Court: where actual malice is found the employee is fully liable; LGTCA cap did not limit the individual officers’ liability. |
| Duplication/inconsistency of verdicts and punitive awards | Johnson: separate counts reflect distinct legal wrongs warranting separate awards | Officers: awards duplicated same injury across constitutional and tort counts and punitive damages may be duplicative/inconsistent | Some arguments waived for failure to preserve; appellate court found the constitutional compensatory award duplicative and reduced awards for Francis and Smith; punitive‑award duplication not considered due to preservation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of actual malice for punitive damages | Woodland and Johnson testimony plus officers’ conduct show malice by clear and convincing evidence | Officers: insufficient evidence to prove actual malice; conduct lawful investigatory activity | Sufficient evidence existed (threats, force, breaking phone, long detainment, dumping, and similar Woodland incident) to support jury’s malice finding as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Maryland v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594 (2011) (Md. Rule 5‑404(b) applies to criminal prosecutions; civil admissibility governed by relevance and Rule 5‑403)
- State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705 (2011) (trial court’s relevancy determinations reviewed de novo; admission decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Espina v. Prince George’s Cnty., 215 Md. App. 611 (2013) (prior incidents involving officer admissible to show motive, intent, and modus operandi)
- Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143 (1999) (Legislature intended malice to preclude governmental immunity; officers who acted with actual malice are fully liable)
- Smallwood v. Bradford, 352 Md. 8 (1998) (duplicative or overlapping recoveries for the same wrong are not permitted)