Morales v. State
98 A.3d 1032
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- On Feb 22, 2013, Luis Morales was alleged to have robbed Sahid and Taha Kaleem after arranging a Craigslist sale; Taha was shot and victims called 911. Morales was indicted on multiple counts including robbery with a deadly weapon and use/possession of a firearm; jury convicted on all charges.
- Police investigated, used a mug/book and later a six-photo array (including Morales’s photo) for pre-trial identifications; the Kaleems (father, son, daughter) identified Morales at various times.
- At the suppression hearing, defense argued photo procedures were impermissibly suggestive because Taha and Javeria viewed the mug book in the same room and Morales’s photo appeared both in the mug book and later array while another initially-selected suspect’s photo was omitted.
- At trial, Detective Batavick testified he contacted Craigslist and a cellphone carrier which provided a name/address leading officers to Morales’s home; portions of that testimony were objected to, the court struck specific hearsay and instructed the jury to disregard it.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion (found procedures not impermissibly suggestive) and denied exclusion beyond striking the detective’s specific hearsay; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Morales's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of detective’s testimony re: carrier providing name/address (hearsay) | Testimony relaying carrier’s specific info was prejudicial hearsay tying Morales to Craigslist ruse; should have been excluded or worded more generally | Trial court struck the offending testimony and gave curative instruction; no mistrial requested, so remedy adequate | Testimony did include inadmissible hearsay, but the court properly struck it and instructed jury; no reversible error |
| Denial of motion to suppress pre-trial photographic IDs | Procedures were impermissibly suggestive: witnesses viewed mug book with two people in same room and Morales’s photo repeated in both displays while another candidate was omitted; identifications unreliable | Detective gave instructions; children’s viewing was independent (detective monitored); no evidence witnesses noticed photo repeat or were fed answers; State argued reliability intact | Viewing two witnesses in same room was improper but not impermissibly suggestive here; no proof of contamination or that witnesses noticed photo repetition; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 (2009) (standard for hearsay and limits on officer testimony re: out-of-court statements)
- Purvis v. State, 27 Md. App. 713 (1976) (out‑of‑court statements admissible to explain officer conduct but not to prove facts asserted)
- McCray v. State, 84 Md. App. 513 (1990) (officer may explain why at a location but should avoid relaying specific identifying details)
- Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528 (1999) (sustained objections and striking testimony plus jury instruction can cure hearsay error)
- Hyman v. State, 158 Md. App. 618 (2004) (failure to seek further relief at trial waives additional appellate review)
- Prioleau v. State, 411 Md. 629 (2009) (standard of review for suppression hearing findings)
- McCain v. State, 194 Md. App. 252 (2010) (deference to suppression judge’s credibility determinations)
- James v. State, 191 Md. App. 233 (2010) (two-step due process test for suggestive identification: burden, then reliability)
- Thomas v. State, 213 Md. App. 388 (2013) (defense must show unnecessary suggestiveness to trigger reliability inquiry)
- Thomas v. State, 139 Md. App. 188 (2001) (State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that identification reliability outweighs suggestiveness)
- Conyers v. State, 115 Md. App. 114 (1997) (impermissible suggestiveness is limited to feeding the witness the answer)
- Jenkins v. State, 146 Md. App. 83 (2002) (repeated inclusion of defendant in displays can be a factor only if witness had reason to notice it)