246 A.3d 644
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2021Background
- Late May 31–early June 1, 2017: Linda McKenzie and Leslie Smith were found shot to death on Scott Town Road; identity of the shooter was the sole contested issue at trial.
- Multiple eyewitnesses gave inconsistent, intoxicated, or delayed accounts; some identified a white, taller man (Bragg) and others identified or later implicated Kirk Matthews (his cousins and acquaintances provided varying testimony).
- Blunt-house surveillance footage captured portions of the events but not a clear image of the shooter; video quality and distance limited visual identification.
- FBI analyst Kimberly Meline used photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection on a selected still image to estimate the shooter’s height at 5'8" ± 0.67", but acknowledged unquantified uncertainty (terrain, missing feet, head covering, nighttime imagery).
- Trial court admitted (a) extrinsic impeachment via a witness’s prior inconsistent oral statement, (b) limited cross-examination about a cooperating witness’s plea-related charges, and (c) the FBI photogrammetry report and testimony; Matthews was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of extrinsic impeachment (Edward testifies about Rico's prior oral statement) | Matthews: inadmissible because Rico only said he didn’t remember, so he didn’t fail to admit the prior statement. | State: Rico denied telling anyone; Rule 5-613 satisfied and impeachment permitted. | Affirmed — court held that saying “I don’t remember” or denying telling anyone meets Rule 5-613’s requirement that the witness fail to admit the statement. |
| Scope of cross-examination about cooperating witness Tongue’s plea/charges | Matthews: should be allowed to probe charges, statutory maximums, and Tongue’s subjective expectation of benefit to show bias. | State: defense had threshold inquiry; further detail (post-grand-jury charges, max penalties) was cumulative and speculative. | Affirmed — trial court afforded a threshold level of inquiry; limiting further questioning was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Admissibility of FBI photogrammetry / reverse photogrammetry height estimate | Matthews: testimony violated Rule 5-702 (insufficient factual basis/analytical gap), Rule 5-403 (misleading prejudice), and reliability standards (Frye-Reed/Daubert). | State: expert qualified; uncertainties could be exposed by cross-examination; probative value outweighed prejudice. | Reversed — court found an unbridged analytical gap (missing input variables, unquantified uncertainties) so admission of a precise height estimate was unreliable and not harmless; convictions reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698 (2014) (discusses prerequisites for admitting extrinsic prior inconsistent statements)
- McCracken v. State, 150 Md. App. 330 (2003) (witness claiming lack of recollection satisfies foundation for impeachment)
- Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020) (Maryland adopts Daubert framework for expert reliability under Rule 5-702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard for expert testimony reliability)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 159 Md. App. 123 (2004) (Rule 5-702 requires adequate data and reliable methodology)
- Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (2015) (expert conclusions must follow sound reasoning explaining how they were reached)
- State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705 (2011) (Rule 5-403 balancing of probative value versus unfair prejudice)