McLennan v. State
14 A.3d 639
| Md. | 2011Background
- McLennan was convicted of armed robbery in Howard County relating to an incident on November 29, 2005.
- State’s key witness Pedro Mendez testified that McLennan and a co-perpetrator were in his pickup truck before arrest; he identified McLennan in the vehicle after the robbery.
- Petitioner presented an alibi theory, claiming he was with others near Owen Brown and not at the robbery scene; witnesses included Gordon Smith and Douzoua Nado.
- Defense counsel first identified Smith and Nado on April 23, 2007, after initial trials and multiple continuances, prompting a lengthy colloquy about alibi procedures and disclosure.
- The circuit court ruled Smith and Nado were alibi witnesses, then precluded their testimony for failure to timely disclose under Md. Rule 4-263(d)(3); later the court reconsidered as to one witness, Bradley Thomas, but again excluded Smith and Nado.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in its alibi determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith and Nado were properly deemed alibi witnesses | McLennan contends alibi witnesses show pre-robbery activity negating involvement. | State argues failure to disclose alibi information prejudices the State and justifies exclusion. | Yes; witnesses were alibi witnesses and correctly identified. |
| Whether excluding Smith and Nado was an abuse of discretion | Exclusion was too harsh given the relevance of pre-robbery activity. | Discretion properly exercised under Taliaferro factors due to late disclosure and prejudice. | No; circuit court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. State, 488 P.2d 1032 (Alaska 1971) (alibi witness must tend to show impossibility or high improbability of presence)
- Pulley v. State, 287 Md. 406 (1980) (approves alibi standards in Maryland context)
- Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376 (1983) (abuse of discretion factors for alibi witness exclusion)
- Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard in evidentiary rulings)
- Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (2005) (definition and limits of abuse of discretion review)