40 A.3d 396
Md.2012Background
- McClain was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy, and related handgun offenses in Baltimore City.
- The State admitted an audiotape of Sheila Billings’s prior statement without a stated theory of admissibility and without explicit trial findings.
- Billings’s taped statement was offered to impeach/rehabilitate credibility and as a prior inconsistent statement; the court admitted it as either a prior consistent or inconsistent statement.
- A bench conference addressed refreshing recollection with Billings’s transcript during trial; Billings later testified and the tape was admitted into evidence without a specific basis being articulated.
- At deliberations, the court sent Billings’s and two other witnesses’ taped statements to the jury room; the court treated them as exhibits admitted under Maryland rules.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding no error in admission of Billings’s tape as a prior inconsistent statement and no error in sending the tapes to the jury room.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Billings’s audiotape admissible as a prior inconsistent statement? | McClain contends no admissible basis was shown | State asserts admissibility under Rule 5-802.1(a) as inconsistent | Admissible as prior inconsistent statement |
| Did sending the taped statements to the jury room violate Rule 4-326? | Sending tapes to jury room was improper without a request | Court acted within discretion; exhibits may go to jury room absent good cause to withhold | Not error to send tapes to jury room |
Key Cases Cited
- Germain v. State, 363 Md. 511 (2001) (admissibility of prior statements and refreshing recollection considerations)
- Davis v. State, 344 Md. 331 (1996) (implied ruling on Rule 5-802.1(a) admissibility without explicit on-record findings)
- Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408 (2000) (demeanor-based credibility findings required for 5-802.1(a) not available on cold record)
- Powell v. State, 394 Md. 632 (2006) (interpretation of rules lacking explicit “findings on the record” language)
- Adams v. State, 415 Md. 585 (2010) (scope of Rule 4-326(b)-(c) regarding jury access to admitted exhibits)