Hall, Cummings, Lubin v. State
163 A.3d 191
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- On March 28, 2015, masked men armed with guns entered an apartment occupied by Janise Ray and Raymond Clark; a gunfight ensued and Dexter Manigault was fatally shot. Police recovered multiple shell casings, a gun, masks, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia in the apartment/vehicle.
- Michael Hall, Tywan Cummings, and Daquawn Lubin were arrested, tried together, and convicted of first‑degree burglary, first‑degree assault, use of a firearm in a crime of violence, related offenses, and conspiracy/attempted robbery. Hall testified that the incident was a drug deal gone wrong; the State characterized it as an attempted robbery.
- Before trial the State moved in limine to preclude impeachment of State witness Raymond Clark with a prior manslaughter conviction; the trial court ruled manslaughter was not an impeachable offense and barred defense questioning about Clark’s conviction or that it prohibited him from possessing firearms.
- Defense counsel sought to show Clark (and Ray) had motive to fabricate the robbery story because Clark’s manslaughter conviction made him a felon prohibited from possessing guns; the court limited cross‑examination on that topic.
- All three defendants were convicted; on appeal the court considered preservation and the merits of the evidentiary rulings, and separately reviewed sufficiency challenges by Cummings and Lubin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in excluding impeachment with Clark’s manslaughter conviction under Md. Rule 5‑609 | State: conviction not admissible for impeachment and exclusion was not preserved by defense | Defendants: manslaughter is an infamous crime and admissible; exclusion prevented proof of motive to lie | Reversed: exclusion was error; manslaughter is an infamous crime and the court improperly foreclosed the Rule 5‑609 analysis and discretion to weigh probative value vs prejudice |
| Whether court improperly limited cross‑examination about Clark’s and Ray’s motive to fabricate (knowledge that manslaughter conviction barred gun possession) | State: cross about motive not sufficiently supported or relevant; limits appropriate | Defendants: factual basis existed (conviction, relationship, drug evidence) and motive was central to credibility | Reversed: limitation violated confrontation rights—defense entitled to probe bias/motive and jury deprived of material impeachment evidence |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain Cummings’s convictions for attempted armed robbery and related offenses | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (witness ID, GPS, Hall’s testimony, masks, guns, ammo, zip ties) supports conspiracy and attempt | Cummings: no proof of intent to rob or taking/demand; insufficient to show conspiracy | Affirmed as to sufficiency: ample direct/circumstantial evidence supported attempted armed robbery and conspiracy convictions |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain Lubin’s convictions and whether sentencing entry for armed robbery was erroneous | State: physical and testimonial evidence tied Lubin to conspiracy and attempt; armed vs attempted was clerical entry error | Lubin: insufficient evidence of intent or agreement to rob; sentence for offense not convicted | Held: evidence sufficient for attempted armed robbery/conspiracy; trial showed jury convicted of attempted armed robbery and clerical error noting "armed robbery" at sentencing should be corrected; convictions supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Westpoint, 404 Md. 455 (discussion of Rule 5‑609 three‑part test)
- Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348 (in limine exclusion preserves appeal of impeachment ruling)
- Beales v. State, 329 Md. 263 (preservation and threshold issues for impeachment admissibility)
- Pantazes v. State, 376 Md. 661 (limits on cross‑examination when factual basis lacking)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (cross‑examination on witness bias is constitutionally central)
- Calloway v. State, 414 Md. 616 (reversible error where court limited cross‑examination on expectation of leniency)
- Martinez v. State, 416 Md. 418 (scope of permissible cross‑examination and confrontation right)
- Corbin v. State, 428 Md. 488 (standards for circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
- Metheny v. State, 359 Md. 576 (definition and elements of robbery)
- Townes v. State, 314 Md. 71 (elements of attempt)