Lopez v. State
153 A.3d 780
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Curtis Maurice Lopez entered Alford pleas to the robbery and first-degree murders of Jane McQuain and her 11-year-old son William; he received consecutive life-without-parole sentences among other terms.
- Before sentencing the State had produced ~10,000 pages of discovery but provided only a blanket statement that it might use any of that material at sentencing. Defense sought a more particularized presentencing disclosure under Md. Rule 4-342(d).
- The trial court denied the defense’s motion to compel specificity and did not postpone sentencing. Defense did not object during the sentencing hearing to the State’s exhibits beyond moving to exclude a victim-impact video.
- The State presented a ~6-minute victim-impact video montage (115 still photographs set to music) during testimony from the victims’ representative; the judge allowed it over defense objection.
- Lopez appealed, arguing (1) inadequate Rule 4-342(d) disclosure prejudiced his ability to prepare for sentencing and (2) the victim-impact video was unduly prejudicial and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Court of Special Appeals found the State’s notice insufficient under Rule 4-342(d) but held the deficiency was harmless; it also held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim-impact video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated Md. Rule 4-342(d) by failing to disclose with particularity what it would present at sentencing | Lopez: Rule requires the State to identify, with particularity, the specific documents/witnesses it will use from voluminous discovery; blanket "use everything" was inadequate and prejudicial | State: Rule does not require a line-item bill of particulars; discovery was provided and defense had opportunity to investigate; defense already had materials | Court: State’s notice was insufficient under Dove/Green, but error was harmless because defense had core materials (PSI, victim statements), counsel did not object at sentencing, and record shows no prejudice; no resentencing needed |
| Whether the victim-impact video was unduly prejudicial and violated Eighth/14th Amendments | Lopez: Six-minute montage with music appealed to emotion and risked unfair prejudice outweighing probative value; violated due process and Eighth (arbitrariness concern) | State: Video was probative victim-impact evidence (identities, life lost), brief, non-narrated, and permitted under Payne; judge has discretion; presentation was not inflammatory | Court: No abuse of discretion. Video did not contain forbidden family characterizations/opinions (Booth), was brief and probative, and a bench sentencing judge can be trusted to weigh evidence; even if borderline, any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 (rule 4-342(d) requires disclosure of any information the State expects to present at sentencing; strict compliance required)
- Green v. State, 127 Md. App. 758 (notice must identify evidence the State expects to present; defendant must be able to investigate)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (victim-impact evidence admissible; due-process limits apply if evidence is unduly prejudicial)
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (barred certain victim-impact evidence in capital cases; limited aspects survive Payne)
- Bosse v. Oklahoma, 137 S. Ct. 1 (clarified Payne did not overrule Booth’s prohibition on family characterizations/opinions)
- Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156 (bench sentencing gives trial judge discretion to admit victim-impact evidence; judge presumed to apply law)
- Whittlesey v. State, 340 Md. 30 (approving brief in-life video at capital sentencing as not unduly inflammatory)
- Evans v. State, 333 Md. 660 (applied "unduly inflammatory" standard; short victim statements not more inflammatory than crime itself)
- Outmezguine v. State, 97 Md. App. 151 (failure to seek postponement may undermine claim of prejudice from late disclosure)
- State v. Leon, 132 P.3d 462 (Idaho Ct. App.) (short victim video montage admissible as probative and not unduly prejudicial)
- Salazar v. State, 90 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App.) (long, highly emotional 17-minute montage was unduly prejudicial)
- United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166 (long memorial-style video at capital sentencing excluded as unfairly prejudicial)
- State v. Hess, 23 A.3d 373 (N.J.) (professionally produced, lengthy 17-minute video including tombstone/funeral imagery was unduly inflammatory)