Geiger v. State
174 A.3d 954
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- On June 23–24, 2015 an individual using the name “Brian Johnson” purchased four Continental tires from Southern Tire, paid with a credit card number and presented a North Carolina driver’s license bearing “Brian Johnson” with a photograph of the appellant, Lamont Jeffery Geiger.
- Southern Tire later received a chargeback for the purchase; the credit card number was fraudulently used and the business reported the incident to police.
- At trial (bench trial, Sept. 8, 2016) Leanne Ayers (sales employee) identified Geiger as the purchaser with 99% certainty; the court admitted a copy of the fake NC license and Geiger’s Maryland driver’s license and found the photos depicted the same person.
- Detective Kelly searched the NC MVA database (while standing with a Charles County desk clerk) and testified no NC license existed for the listed Brian Johnson; he then, "upon information received," consulted a crime analyst and later obtained Geiger’s MD license.
- Geiger challenged admission of (1) the database-search testimony as hearsay and (2) testimony implying use of facial recognition technology that allegedly identified Geiger, arguing confrontation/hearsay and reliance on unproven technology.
- The trial judge convicted Geiger of theft by deception (value between $1,000 and $10,000); the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the contested testimony admissible or harmless and distinguishing Zemo v. State.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Geiger's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony that a diligent search of NC MVA revealed no matching license | Detective Kelly participated in the joint search and can testify to "I searched and found nothing" under Md. Rule 5-803(b)(10) (absence of public record) | Clerk, not Kelly, did the search; Kelly lacked personal knowledge so testimony was hearsay and did not satisfy the Rule’s "diligent search" requirement | Court: Kelly personally participated and observed the search; the negative-result testimony was admissible under the absence-of-record exception; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Admission of Geiger’s MD license and identification linking him to the fake NC license | The MD license and Ayers’s in-court ID provide direct, admissible identification; how the MD license was located ("information received") is irrelevant | Identification resulted from facial recognition/computer search by others; that process is unproven, generated multiple matches, and the machine/operators weren’t available for cross-examination (hearsay/confrontation) | Court: How the suspect was developed was legally irrelevant; facial recognition was only an investigative tool and was not introduced as evidence; MD license and eyewitness ID were sufficient; any mention was by defense counsel, not the State; if error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether investigative steps that reference out-of-court sources impermissibly bolstered detective credibility (Zemo v. State issue) | The State’s limited references were brief and relevant; unlike Zemo, there was no sustained, prejudicial "Greek chorus" of inadmissible corroboration | Parallels to Zemo: detective relayed reports from unnamed sources (clerk, analyst) which bolstered his suspicion and denied confrontation | Court: Distinguished Zemo — here testimony was brief, relevant, and admissible; Zemo involved deliberate, repeated, prejudicial misuse of informant and post-Miranda silence evidence; no similar overreach here |
| Harmlessness of any potential evidentiary error | Conviction rests on unambiguous evidence (fake license with appellant’s photo + victim ID); any error in describing the search or investigative steps could not have affected outcome | Any admission of computer-generated leads or untested procedures prejudiced the defense and should warrant reversal | Court: Any arguable error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the direct identification and lack of contested defenses; verdict would be the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (court jurisdiction and trial not defeated by irregularities in how defendant was brought to court)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (illegal means of bringing defendant to court do not bar prosecution)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (illegal arrest does not make defendant’s identity or presence suppressible as fruit)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (defendant not immune from prosecution because his person was the product of an illegal arrest)
- Zemo v. State, 101 Md. App. 303 (inadmissible and repeated use of privileged/confidential-source material and post-Miranda silence can justify reversal)
- Modecki v. State, 138 Md. App. 372 (defendant’s identity is not "fruit" of unlawful detention when evidence is otherwise untainted)
- Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 (investigating officer may be permitted to say he acted on "information received" to avoid hearsay)