Herring v. State, 16 A.3d 246

On Aug. 19, 2008, at 7:35 p.m., three Baltimore City detectives in an unmarked car observed a blue Monte Carlo parked with hazard lights on, two feet from the curb.
The Monte Carlo, containing four occupants, was stopped and the driver rolled down the windows following a knock; the handgun butt was seen in the center console as the window opened.
The officers drew weapons and removed all four occupants; a search yielded $200 in the glove box, and a handgun in the center console, plus other items; the gun was operable and later fingerprinted with no suitable prints found.
Appellant, Alton Herring, was charged with possession of a regulated firearm after a prior disqualifying crime and wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun; trial occurred in Baltimore City Circuit Court with other occupants not parties to this appeal.
Stipulations at trial included the handgun being a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson long revolver, operable, and that the gun met the statutory definition of a handgun; appellant previously convicted of a crime prohibiting firearm possession.
The trial court denied suppression and admission of the gun; the jury ultimately convicted Herring on the charged counts, and he appealed challenging suppression, verdict-sheet numbering, and closing arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was suppression properly denied?	Herring contends the seizure was unlawful and the window-down request was a seizure without reasonable suspicion.	Herring argues the encounter was a pretext and the car's parking, not a basis for seizure; the search fruits should be suppressed.	Yes; denial affirmed as proper under Whren/ caretaking authorities.
Was the verdict sheet properly framed or prejudicial?	Herring argues misnumbering could imply more counts; Sherman v. State requires removal of dead counts and could prejudice.	State says numbering had no effect; Sherman does not apply; Rule 4-326(b) does not require particular numbering.	No reversible error; any abuse harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did prosecutor's statements on constructive possession count as plain error?	Herring alleges repeated misstatement of constructive possession misled jurors and court failed to cure.	State asserts closing remarks were within wide latitude; no plain error given instructions and overwhelming evidence.	No plain error; statements did not deny fair trial.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause justifies traffic stops regardless of officers' subjective intent)
In re Albert S., 106 Md.App. 376 (1995) (automobile stop implications under Fourth Amendment)
Sherman v. State, 288 Md. 636 (1980) (dead counts and jury deliberations under indictment)
Price v. State, 111 Md.App. 487 (1996) (constructive possession factors and nexus in possessory offenses)
State v. Leach, 296 Md. 591 (1983) (evidence and dominion/control required for possession)