Jarrett v. State
104 A.3d 972
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- In 1991 Christine Jarrett disappeared from her Howard County home; skeletal remains identified as hers were found under the backyard shed in April 2012. Robert A. Jarrett Jr. (defendant) was arrested and later convicted of second-degree murder.
- Remains were identified by dental records; autopsy could not determine a precise cause of death but concluded the manner was homicide. The remains were released to family and subsequently cremated.
- Shortly after the discovery, recorded jail calls between Jarrett and his son Michael included a request to help pay for their mother’s cremation; the State played portions at trial.
- Defense sought jury instructions on (a) gross-negligence involuntary manslaughter and (b) a missing-evidence adverse-inference (because remains were cremated); the court denied those requests. The court gave a concealment-of-evidence instruction.
- Jarrett appealed, raising four issues: admissibility of jail-call recordings, refusal to give gross-negligence manslaughter instruction, propriety of concealment instruction, and refusal to give missing-evidence instruction. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jarrett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of jail-call recordings (April 24, 2012) | Recordings were irrelevant and contained inadmissible hearsay; admission denied because defense couldn't cross-examine son | Statements not offered for their truth (offered to show effect on Jarrett); Jarrett’s own statements admissible as party-opponent/tacit admissions | Court affirmed admission: recordings were relevant and admissible (non-hearsay purpose or party-opponent exception) |
| 2. Gross-negligence involuntary manslaughter instruction | Jury should have been instructed on gross-negligence manslaughter as an available lesser-included offense | No evidence generated that Jarrett acted with gross negligence causing death | Denied: instruction not generated by the evidence (no proof of grossly negligent act causing death) |
| 3. Concealment-of-evidence instruction | Instruction improperly implied guilt and was unsupported by evidence of post-crime concealment | Evidence (shed construction, empty concrete bags, incriminating email jokes) supported inference of concealment and consciousness of guilt; instruction followed pattern language | Affirmed: instruction appropriate, did not impermissibly state guilt, and was supported by evidence |
| 4. Missing-evidence (adverse-inference) instruction | Failure to give instruction prejudiced defense because remains were released and cremated before defense could independently examine them | No State misconduct; OME policy releases remains after autopsy; family, not State, cremated remains; defendant was notified and acquiesced | Denied: no abuse of discretion—circumstances distinguishable from Cost; State had no duty to retain remains after autopsy |
Key Cases Cited
- Handy v. State, 201 Md. App. 521 (2011) (out-of-court statements admissible if offered for non-hearsay purpose or fall within hearsay exception)
- Conyers v. State, 354 Md. 132 (1999) (framework for hearsay and exceptions)
- Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury-instruction rulings)
- Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279 (1998) (evidence threshold for generating jury instructions)
- Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (2006) (approach to flight instructions and related inferences)
- Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 (2010) (trial court abused discretion by failing to give missing-evidence instruction where State destroyed highly relevant evidence in custody)