McNeal v. State
200 Md. App. 510
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- McNeal was convicted of unlawful possession of a regulated firearm by a prohibited person and resisting arrest; he was acquitted of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun.
- On Oct. 15, 2008, Officer Gold located a .9 mm Luger in McNeal's left pocket after McNeal admitted possessing a gun he found on Poplar Grove Street.
- McNeal had a prior disqualifying conviction, as stipulated at trial.
- During suppression hearing, McNeal testified he found the gun and planned to turn it in; trial impeachment revealed prior statements about time, distance, and companions with the gun.
- McNeal sought a mens rea instruction; the court gave a knowledge-based instruction, holding intent to use or carry the gun was required but not a separate 'wrongful intent' element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts may stand when not legally inconsistent | McNeal argues verdicts are legally inconsistent and should be set aside | State contends verdicts are not legally inconsistent | No reversible legal inconsistency; verdicts were factually inconsistent but legally coherent |
| Admissibility of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement | State failed to show McNeal admitted the prior statement under Rule 5-613(b) | State complied with Rule 5-613(b) and impeachment was proper | Extrinsic evidence properly admitted; foundations met; not error |
| Required mens rea instruction for 5-133 handgun possession | Defense instruction on mens rea was necessary to avoid conviction for innocent possession | Mens rea element is satisfied by knowledge; instruction not required | Court correctly instructed that knowledge is required; no mens rea instruction needed |
| Sentence for resisting arrest and abrogation of common law | Common law resisting arrest abrogated by 2004 statute; seven-year sentence may exceed max | Common law remains; statute caps punishment but not abrogation; max should be three years | Common law not abrogated; sentence vacated and remanded for re-sentencing to max three years |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (2008) (inconsistent verdicts shall no longer be allowed in criminal trials)
- Tate v. State, 182 Md.App. 114 (2008) (distinguishes factually inconsistent from legally inconsistent verdicts)
- Hardison v. State, 118 Md.App. 225 (1997) (rule governing extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements)
- Robinson v. State, 353 Md. 683 (1999) (statutes not presumed to repeal common law; conflict analysis)
- Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (2003) (statutory interpretation regarding unit of prosecution)
- Parker v. State, 402 Md. 372 (2007) (possession typically requires knowledge of illicit item)
- State v. North, 356 Md. 308 (1999) (presumption against repealing common law by implication)