McFadden and Miles v. State
2011 Md. App. LEXIS 11
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- July 6, 2007, Johnson was killed and Ball and Wilson were wounded during a shooting in Baltimore; McFadden and Miles were joint defendants.
- Trial court convicted both appellants on multiple counts including first degree murder (McFadden), weapon and assault offenses, armed carjacking, and conspiracy; sentences run consecutively in large part.
- Appellants challenged voir dire for a CSI-type evidence question, and prosecution/opening and rebuttal comments by the State.
- Appellants preserved the CSI voir dire issue and the State’s improper comments; the court granted reversal on these grounds and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court remanded for a new trial based on CSI-voir dire error and improper prosecutorial comments; issues 3–10 were not decided on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSI voir dire improper | McFadden/Miles preserved; CSI question biased venire. | CSI question improperly suggested conviction only with scientific evidence. | CSI issue preserved; reversed for new trial |
| Improper State comments | Prosecutor's remarks were abusive and prejudicial. | Some comments objected to; others not preserved. | Improper comments; reversible unless cured; remanded for new trial |
| Cross-examination / relevance of Ball | Court erred in limiting cross-exam of Ball. | Trial court acted within discretion on relevance. | Not addressed due to remand |
| Sentence merger for conspiracy | Conspiracies should merge for single offense. | No merger or appropriate merger rules applied. | Not addressed due to remand |
| Evidence sufficiency for certain convictions | Evidence insufficient for attempted armed carjacking, conspiracy, and first-degree assault. | Evidence sufficient as to the charged offenses. | Not addressed due to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles & Drake v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010) (voir dire must avoid suggestive questions; fairness of venire)
- Fowlkes v. State, 117 Md.App. 573 (1997) (objections to voir dire preserved if timely; jury composition not dispositive)
- Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606 (1995) (waiver analysis for voir dire objections when jury seated)
- Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 (2005) (appropriateness of voir dire questions; preserved errors despite final panel)
- Logan v. State, 394 Md. 378 (2006) (voir dire aims to uncover bias and ensure fair jury)
- White v. State, 125 Md.App. 684 (1999) (prohibition on prejudicial or improper prosecutorial commentary)
- Sivells v. State, 196 Md.App. 254 (2010) (closing remarks that bolster prosecution require reversal if improper)
- Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (2005) (prosecutorial comments must be tethered to evidence; improper bolstering)
- Hill v. State, 355 Md. 206 (1999) (limits on prejudicial prosecutorial conduct)
- Charles & Drake v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010) (voir dire and fair trial considerations; impact of CSI-type question)