297 A.3d 642
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2023Background
- Appellant Troy Mason was convicted by a jury in Carroll County of second-degree assault; Judge Maria Oesterreicher presided.
- Police prepared a four‑page Maryland Domestic Violence/Strangulation supplement; the fourth page (detailing observed injuries via numerous check‑boxes) was delivered in discovery with the injury boxes blank.
- Detective Nolan Carbaugh signed and disclosed the four‑page form; Corporal Alexander DeAngelis had actually interviewed the victim (Ms. G.) and testified later that his version had checked injury boxes that were not the ones filed.
- Defense used the blank boxes to impeach Detective Carbaugh; after DeAngelis explained the paperwork error at trial, defense moved for a mistrial—trial court denied it, finding inadvertence and no irremediable prejudice.
- The court admitted a redacted 911 call (neighbor’s outcry) as excited utterance/present sense impression; remaining hearsay objections to the victim’s statements to police were overruled as excited utterances or found harmless/not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial was required after a four‑page Strangulation Supplement filed in discovery omitted checked injury boxes | Mason: the incorrect/‘false’ page misled jury and undermined State evidence; denial of mistrial was reversible | State: the omission was an inadvertent bookkeeping error, no bad faith, and no irremediable prejudice; limited remedies available | Denied mistrial: trial judge did not abuse discretion — error inadvertent and not so prejudicial as to deprive fair trial |
| Admissibility of a 911 call containing mixed hearsay (neighbor’s declaration) | Mason: whole call is hearsay and should have been excluded in toto | State: portions qualify under excited utterance and present sense impression; court can redact non‑qualifying parts | Court approved careful redaction; admitted limited portions as excited utterance/present sense impression; ruling not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court erred by refusing a self‑defense instruction | Mason: testimony (e.g., being hit with a fan, leaving because of fear) generated jury issue on self‑defense | State: appellant failed to identify a particular assaultive act he seeks to justify and produced no evidence linking a specific provocation to a specific defensive response | Instruction properly refused: appellant never tied a particular act to a necessary cause‑and‑effect self‑defense claim; insufficient evidence to generate instruction |
| Admissibility of victim’s out‑of‑court statements to police (Corporal DeAngelis) | Mason: those statements are hearsay and bolstered ID and credibility improperly | State: statements admissible as excited utterance; identity and events were otherwise corroborated | Admission upheld (and, in any event, harmless or not preserved): testimony fit excited‑utterance groundwork and did not prejudice outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Georges v. State, 252 Md. App. 523 (2021) (mistrial review — assess whether incident was a "patch of rough water" or an "iceberg")
- Molter v. State, 201 Md. App. 155 (2011) (mistrial is extraordinary remedy; abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528 (1999) (mistrial/new trial standard and prejudice requirement)
- Cooley v. State, 385 Md. 165 (2005) (trial judge afforded considerable discretion on mistrial decisions)
- Simmons v. State, 436 Md. 202 (2013) (deference to trial judge on mistrial because judge has trial‑level perspective)
- Raynor v. State, 201 Md. App. 209 (2011) (sanctions for discovery violations; consider intent, prejudice, curative measures)
- Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557 (2007) (sanctions/discovery — least severe sanction consistent with purpose)
- Booth v. State, 306 Md. 313 (1986) (adoption of present sense impression exception in Maryland)
- Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408 (2000) (elements of perfect self‑defense in non‑deadly cases)
- Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279 (1998) (trial court must give requested instruction if evidence is sufficient to generate a jury issue)
- State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270 (1992) (trial judge best positioned to evaluate prejudice from inadmissible matters)