Grimes v. State
30 A.3d 1032
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Antwan Grymes was charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault in the first degree, and use of a handgun in a crime of violence; he was acquitted of all charges except robbery and second-degree assault, with sentences of 15 years and 10 years concurrent.
- Grymes moved to suppress a loaded .38 revolver found in the common laundry room of the 657 Houston Avenue building and to suppress a cell phone, argued to be the fruit of custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings.
- Police entered the unlocked 657 Houston Avenue building, searched the shared laundry room where the gun was found, and later arrested Grymes at Harkum’s apartment; Amankwah had said she saw Grymes with a gun and that it might be in the laundry room.
- The laundry room was on the first floor, unlocked, with signage; Grymes lived as a long-time guest in Harkum’s unit and kept some clothing there.
- The gun recovered and the clothing/phone search occurred before the Miranda warnings; Pumphrey and Amankwah testified regarding gun descriptions and Grymes’s involvement.
- At trial, the gun and photographs were admitted; Grymes challenged the gun’s connection to him and jurors eventually acquitted on gun-related charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment—laundry room search | Grymes had a privacy interest in the laundry room. | No reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of a multiunit building. | Denied; no reasonable privacy in laundry room; search upheld. |
| Custodial interrogation before Miranda | Cell phone should be suppressed as fruit of pre-Miranda interrogation. | No interrogation occurred; statements admissible. | Denied; no interrogation; Miranda warnings not required for the retrieved clothing identification. |
| Admissibility of gun evidence | Gun lacked sufficient nexus to Grymes or the offense. | Jury should weigh credibility; gun could be connected via Amankwah’s statement. | Admissible; sufficient nexus; jury to weigh the connection. |
| Missing evidence instruction | Instruction should be given under spoliation theory (Cost framework). | Instruction not warranted; evidence not central to defense. | Denied; no mandatory missing-evidence instruction; not central to defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. State, 28 Md.App. 257 (1975) (standing to challenge warrantless basement search; common areas may be private)
- Eisenstein v. State, 200 Md. 593 (1952) (unlocked public access areas may be open to the public for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Fitzgerald v. State, 384 Md. 484 (2004) (canine sniff in common hallways not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Whiting v. State, 389 Md. 334 (2005) (factors for reasonable expectation of privacy in multiunit settings)
- Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 (1999) (absent deliberate destruction, missing-evidence instruction not automatic)
- Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 (2010) (exceptional missing-evidence instruction when destruction of key evidence involves defense)
- Gimble v. State, 198 Md.App. 610 (2011) (missing evidence instruction not mandated where destroyed evidence not central)
- Burleson v. United States, 306 A.2d 659 (1973) ( Burleson used for gun-evidence nexus discussions; distinguishable fact pattern)