Howard v. State
156 A.3d 981
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Victim (Edna Lobell), age 98 at the time, let Paul Howard into her home after he falsely represented himself as a repairman; later that day he assaulted her, fractured her hip, attempted sexual assault, stole money, and disabled communications. Howard fled when first responders arrived.
- Police photographed the scene (113 photos), collected a t-shirt, a phone base, blood swabs, and an envelope from the victim’s bedroom bearing a fingerprint that matched Howard. DNA from the t-shirt and carpet matched Howard.
- Howard was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, false imprisonment, and theft < $1,000; sentenced to a total of 81½ years (consecutive terms, including 35 years for false imprisonment).
- Pretrial, defense sought an order compelling inspection of the victim’s house (a private residence owned by the victim’s son); the State and trial court refused.
- Additional trial disputes: (1) latent-print expert’s reference to an “archive file”; (2) modified jury instruction on “breaking” for first-degree burglary; (3) defense request to exclude DNA evidence absent a Frye–Reed hearing; (4) challenges to sufficiency, merger, and proportionality of the false-imprisonment sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Howard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could order pretrial inspection of private residence crime scene | Court has inherent authority (and/or constitutional right to present a defense) to compel inspection of the house despite owner’s objection | Discovery rules apply only to property in State’s possession/control; no authority to force a third-party homeowner; alternative: defense failed to show need | Court: No inherent authority to compel pretrial inspection absent rule/statute; even assuming due-process right might allow it, defense failed to show threshold need, so denial proper |
| Whether Officer Wallace’s reference to an “archive file” warranted mistrial/striking testimony | Reference implied prior arrests/convictions and was highly prejudicial | Reference ambiguous; fingerprint comparison permitted; any prejudice outweighed by evidence | Court: Reference was ambiguous and not a clear suggestion of prior crimes; denial of mistrial/strike was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether modified jury instruction on “breaking” (actual vs. constructive) was improper | Modification amplified State’s theory and tilted instruction to prosecution | Modified instruction accurately stated law and was supported by evidence (fraudulent entry) | Court: Instruction was a correct statement of law, applicable to facts, and not duplicative — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether DNA evidence required a Frye–Reed hearing to be admissible | DNA report lacked certification under statute’s listed standards; defense asked to exclude report and testimony | DNA testing is generally accepted; defense failed to request Frye–Reed hearing; statute permits automatic admissibility when validated | Court: Issue not preserved because defense did not request Frye–Reed hearing; moreover, DNA analysis met recognized standards and was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (Court of Appeals) (no inherent authority to order pretrial discovery beyond statutes/rules; no constitutional right to privileged third-party records pretrial)
- Cole v. State, 378 Md. 42 (Court of Appeals) (trial judges lack power beyond Rule 4-263 to order discovery of tangible evidence in State’s possession)
- Hobby v. State, 436 Md. 526 (Court of Appeals) (definitions of actual and constructive breaking for burglary)
- Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698 (Court of Appeals) (required-evidence merger test discussion)
- Carroll v. State, 428 Md. 679 (Court of Appeals) (fundamental-fairness merger analysis; crimes must be part-and-parcel to require merger)