McCree v. State
76 A.3d 400
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- McCree was tried in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County on multiple counts including distributing, selling, and/or possessing DVDs bearing counterfeit marks with aggregate value ≥$1,000 under CR § 8-611, marijuana possession, and driving with an expired license.
- The court denied McCree’s pretrial challenges as to the constitutionality of CR § 8-611, suppression of evidence, and defense counsel replacement.
- The State’s evidence included Troopers’ stop of McCree’s van, a K-9 alert, and seizure of counterfeit DVDs and CDs; an MPAA investigator testified to counterfeit markings and value.
- McCree testified he bought DVDs from New York adult bookstores and resold them, denying manufacture or knowledge of counterfeit marks.
- The jury convicted McCree on the counterfeit-mark DVD counts and several related offenses, and the court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences culminating in a ten-year term for the counterfeit-related offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is CR § 8-611 vague or overbroad? | McCree argues § 8-611 is vague/overbroad | State contends statute clear when read in context | No; § 8-611 passes vagueness and overbreadth review |
| Was the suppression motion proper given stop duration? | McCree argues stop length was unreasonably long before K-9 alert | State asserts stop duration reasonable under totality of circumstances | Denial of suppression affirmed; stop reasonable |
| Did Rule 4-215(e) require advising McCree of pro se rights? | McCree argues court failed to advise him of right to proceed pro se | Court complied with Rule 4-215(e) by evaluating merit of request | Court did not err; Rule 4-215(e) satisfied |
| Did counts ten through sixteen fail to state a cognizable offense? | Information misstated elements (without consent vs. without credit) | Counts identify § 7-308(d)(2); deficiency did not deprive jurisdiction | Defects not jurisdiction-depriving; information sufficiently identifies offense |
| Did the jury instruction constitute plain error? | Unpreserved error in reasonable-doubt instruction | Instructions largely conform to MPJI-Cr 2:02; any error invited by McCree | No plain error; instructions adequate when read as a whole |
Key Cases Cited
- Galloway v. State, 365 Md. 599 (Md. 2001) (vagueness and overbreadth framework applied to statutes)
- Ay ers v. State, 335 Md. 602 (Md. 1994) (First Amendment vagueness considerations for criminal statutes)
- State v. Green, 375 Md. 595 (Md. 2003) (reasonableness of traffic-stop duration frameworks)
- Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462 (Md. 2006) (detention duration and K-9 considerations)
- Carroll v. State, 428 Md. 679 (Md. 2012) (reasonable-doubt jury instruction sufficiency when read as a whole)