Martin v. State
218 Md. App. 1
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2014Background
- Mart in was convicted by jury in Anne Arundel County of attempted first-degree murder and related offenses.
- Key physical evidence included a home-made silencer built from a Gatorade bottle, a hair, saliva, and a matching DNA profile to Martin.
- Text messages from the victim’s Blackberry showed communications on the day of the shooting.
- Witnesses included Michael Bradley (immune from prosecution) and Sheri Carter, who connected Martin to the silencer and pre-incident conduct.
- The State’s theory included that Burks was the shooter and Martin aided as an accessory before the fact or participated in silencer construction.
- The defense challenged discovery, confrontation, bill of particulars, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, verdict consistency, and sentencing decorum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap/Stored Communications Act suppression | Martin argues text messages were intercepted unlawfully | State contends no interception; messages stored, not in transit | Text messages not intercepted under Maryland Wiretap Act; no suppression required. |
| Confrontation Clause and DNA testimony | Melendez-Diaz violation since tester did not perform lab work | Waiver under Rule 4-323; discovery showed others performed work | Waiver proper; no Confrontation violation; alternative ineffective assistance claim not preserved. |
| Bill of particulars and trial theory switch | Denied bill of particulars, State changed theory at trial | Open-file discovery satisfied; no prejudice from theory shift | No reversible error; bill of particulars not required for attempted murder; State’s theory permissible. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted first-degree murder | Evidence showed Martin’s involvement and planning; DNA and motive support guilt | Credibility and alternative theories argued by defense | Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Jury instructions on accessory before the fact vs. aiding and abetting | State's instruction appropriate given evidence of construction of silencer | Aiding-and-abetting instruction needed if applicable | Court did not err; instructions were proper and applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (Confrontation required lab-testers to testify or testify to test results)
- Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994) (Interception does not include stored electronic communications)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (Narrow definition of intercept; storage not an interception)
- Davis v. State, 426 Md. 211 (2012) (Interceptions and definitions aligned with federal standards)
- Dzikowski v. State, 436 Md. 430 (2013) (Bill of particulars right when charged by short-form indictment; analysis of discovery impact)
- McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455 (2012) ( illogical vs. legally inconsistent verdicts; preservation rules)
- Brecker v. State, 304 Md. 36 (1985) (Sentencing considerations and preservation of error in sentencing)
- Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155 (1981) (Constitutional notice requirements and scope of charges)