42 A.3d 83
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Appellant Morris was charged with first and second degree assault in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and convicted after a jury trial.
- Sentencing was consolidated with a previously pled burglary, imposing a total twelve-year sentence with three years for burglary to run concurrent.
- Appellant timely appealed raising two issues: the voir dire CSI question and the sufficiency of evidence corroborating accomplice testimony on identity.
- During voir dire, the court asked a CSI-related question about jurors’ ability to decide solely on the court’s evidence, which defense objected to as improper.
- The State defended the question as appropriate; the court overruled the objection and allowed the question.
- Regarding sufficiency, the State relied on Ms. Picciotto and Mr. Yik’s testimony identifying appellant as the attacker; the defense argued corroboration was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSI voir dire question abused discretion | Morris | Morris | No abuse; CSI question permissible |
| Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony to identify the attacker | Morris—insufficient corroboration for Picciotto's accomplice testimony | Morris—Yik corroborates Picciotto; accomplice issue properly left to jury | Sufficient corroboration existed; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles v. Drake, 414 Md. 726 (2010) (CSI-type voir dire language risk of predetermining verdict)
- Stringfellow v. State, 199 Md.App. 141 (2011) (CSI effect voir dire analysis; affirmed no abuse)
- Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198 (1980) (not guilty verdict instruction; warning against predetermination)
- Silva v. State, 422 Md. 17 (2011) (accomplice determination; jury decides complicity if evidence capable of two inferences)
- Brown v. State, 281 Md. 241 (1977) (corroboration rule for accomplice testimony; safer to require corroboration)