Hajireen v. State
39 A.3d 105
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Hajireen was charged with a third‑degree sexual offense against J.M., an eight‑year‑old girl, and the jury convicted him; he was sentenced to seven years with all but two suspended, followed by supervised probation and sex‑offender registration.
- J.M. testified about being touched on the lap and having his hand inside her underwear; defense highlighted potential fabrication and attacked credibility.
- A DVD of a social worker interviewing J.M. was admitted over objection, and the audio portion of Hajireen’s police interrogation was not recorded due to equipment issues.
- The trial court held the DVD admissible under Maryland Rule 5-802.1 and 5-616(c)(2), and instructed the jury the DVD could only be used to assess credibility of the child’s testimony.
- On appeal, Hajireen challenged the admissibility of the DVD (prior consistent statements/rehabilitation) and the missing audio instruction; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the social worker DVD under 5-616(c)(2) and 5-802.1 | Hajireen argues the DVD contains hearsay and improper attempts to bolster credibility | Hajireen contends the court erred in admitting prior consistent statements as substantive evidence | Reversed; admission of the DVD was an abuse of discretion and the conviction must be vacated. |
| Need for a missing evidence instruction due to missing audio in Hajireen’s interrogation | Missing audio evidence warranted a missing evidence instruction | No audio existed; such an instruction was not required | Not necessary to reach retrial; instruction not required given the unique facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. State, 350 Md. 412 (Md. 1998) (premotive rule for prior consistent statements under 5-802.1(b))
- Hyman v. State, 158 Md.App. 618 (Md. Ct. App. 2004) (continuing interpretation of 5-802.1 and 5-616(c)(2))
- Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 (Md. 1999) (missing evidence/inference vs. required instruction)
- Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 (Md. 2010) (exceptional circumstance missing evidence instruction)
- Gimble v. State, 198 Md.App. 610 (Md. Ct. App. 2011) (admissibility of missing or destroyed evidence; discretionary standard)
- Blair v. State, 130 Md.App. 571 (Md. Ct. App. 2000) (rehabilitation of a witness under 5-616(c)(2))