Gross v. State
142 A.3d 692
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Eklof, a Maryland distributor, discovered ~19,065 lbs (506 cartons) of new copper fittings missing (loss ≈ $263,078) after employees reported shortages; surveillance and an arrest of employee Terrence Mason followed.
- Marcus Gross (appellant) worked at Eklof; scrap-yard records and RAPID showed Gross and his cousin Jeff Ragland sold thousands of pounds of copper number 1 to scrap yards between May–Nov 2012 for significant sums.
- Schindler (Ragland’s employer) installed GPS units on its box trucks; GPS records for Ragland’s truck (tag 71T531) showed repeated patterns of being at/near Eklof and later at scrap yards on relevant dates.
- Tritle (Schindler supervisor) testified and introduced the GPS records as business records; Mason (plea deal) testified Gross recruited him and identified Ragland’s truck as used to remove copper.
- Jury convicted Gross of theft scheme > $100,000, theft $10,000–$100,000, and conspiracy to commit theft > $100,000; court merged theft into theft-scheme and imposed aggregate prison and restitution; Gross appealed on GPS evidence and jury instruction grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of GPS records and testimony | Gross: GPS/geolocation evidence requires expert testimony like cell-phone geolocation; court needed expert to explain GPS operation, transmission frequency, and accuracy | State: GPS records differ from cell-tower data; Tritle only read straightforward date/time/address entries; jurors can understand without expert | No error: lay testimony and business-records admission of GPS data admissible when witness merely reads entries; expert not required |
| Jury instruction on theft scheme elements (plain error) | Gross: Court failed to instruct that theft-scheme requires proof of two or more thefts aggregating ≥ $100,000 and that theft is an element | State: A theft scheme by definition implies multiple thefts; any instructional omission was not plain or material | No plain-error review invoked; court declined to exercise discretion because evidence of multiple thefts was substantial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705 (discretion in evidence rulings) (quoted for trial-court discretion on admissibility)
- Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md., Inc. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594 (trial-court discretion on evidence) (cited regarding admission discretion)
- Johnson & Higgins of Penn., Inc. v. Hale Shipping Corp., 121 Md. App. 426 (expert testimony standard) (cited for broad discretion on expert testimony)
- Kelly v. State, 392 Md. 511 (abuse of discretion standard) (cited on when a trial court abuses discretion)
- State v. Payne, 440 Md. 680 (expert required for cell-phone geolocation) (held police testimony interpreting call-detail records required expert qualification)
- Wilder v. State, 191 Md. App. 319 (cell-phone geolocation expert testimony) (cell-record interpretation required expert)
- Coleman-Fuller v. State, 192 Md. App. 577 (cell-phone geolocation expert testimony) (similar to Payne/Wilder)
- State v. Blackwell, 408 Md. 677 (understanding technical records) (quoted about jurors’ ability to rely on experience)
- Brown v. State, 163 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005) (lay witness admitted to explain GPS business records; no expert required)