Morton v. State
28 A.3d 98
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Morton was convicted by a Worcester County jury of a third degree sex offense and second degree assault involving his nine-year-old daughter, I.M.
- The circuit court sentenced Morton to two years imprisonment, with all but six months suspended.
- Evidence at trial included I.M.’s testimony about digital penetration and Belle Goslee’s SAFE nursing examination findings.
- Goslee found a small tear consistent with recent penetration, but could not assess vaginal penetration due to I.M.’s pain.
- An alternate juror sent a note in court indicating familiarity with a person accompanying Tamara Thompson; the judge did not immediately inform counsel about the note.
- The court eventually dismissed the alternate juror before deliberations; Morton challenged the handling of the note and the admission of Goslee’s expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to promptly notify defense of the juror note violated Rule 4-326(d) | Morton argues notice delay could prejudice defense input and strategy | State contends there was no prejudice and no preservation issue; no reversible error | Issue not preserved; no reversible error even if preserved |
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing Goslee to testify as an expert | Goslee’s qualifications as a pediatric forensic examiner were insufficient; discovery sanctions could apply | Goslee qualified as an expert; late designation was not prejudicial; sanctions unnecessary | Goslee properly admitted; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. State, 420 Md. 57 (Md. 2011) (present at every stage protects trial rights; non-prejudicial communications allowed)
- Bunch v. State, 281 Md. 680 (Md. 1978) (presence requirement in jury communications; impact on verdict assessed)
- Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 (Md. 1958) (non-prejudicial communications need not require reversal)
- Smith v. State, 66 Md.App. 603 (Md. App. 1986) (Rule 4-326(d) aims to give defense input in responding to jury communications)
- Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213 (Md. 1994) (jury communications; fairness and input considerations)
- Taylor v. State, 352 Md. 338 (Md. 1998) (court must notify defendant on jury-law questions; errors when not)
- Dyce v. State, 85 Md. App. 193 (Md. App. 1990) (preservation of objections to evidence following in limine rulings)
- Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557 (Md. 2007) (discovery sanctions; least severe appropriate sanction; prejudice considerations)