Mulley v. State, 137 A.3d 1091

Background

Early morning stop of Jahtoolie Mulley and Tanysha Richardson by plainclothes detectives; officers observed Mulley place a dark object in Richardson’s purse.
Police recovered a loaded revolver and additional ammunition from Richardson’s purse; officers also recovered two cell phones from Mulley’s pants and three chargers from Richardson’s purse.
Detective Iacovo testified that Mulley blurted, “Yo, it’s mine, yo, she just my little sister, for real,” at the scene; Mulley did not testify at trial.
Mulley was charged with multiple gun offenses, including possession of a regulated firearm while under 21 (PS § 5-133(d)); at trial the State introduced testimony that Mulley gave his date of birth when booked—defense contended this was an undisclosed statement.
During deliberations the jury sent notes asking for clarification about the wear/carry/transport offense; the court provided written copies of the instructions rather than a direct supplemental clarification.
On appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed most convictions but vacated the under-21 conviction, holding the State violated discovery by failing to timely disclose Mulley’s oral statement of his birth date and that the error was not harmless.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Mulley’s Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse discretion in responding to jury’s note about whether the State must prove each element of "wear, carry, or transport"?	Court reasonably interpreted the note as asking whether all three modalities must be proved and supplied written instructions; supplemental instruction not required.	Jury was confused about burden of proof; court should have explicitly instructed that the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.	No abuse of discretion: written re‑reading of pattern instructions was a reasonable response; not like Baby where jury’s confusion was explicit.
Was the State required to disclose Mulley’s oral statement of his birth date under Md. Rule 4‑263(d)(1)?	The date-of-birth disclosure was routine booking info and not subject to discovery rules exception claimed.	The oral statement of birth date was a statement relating to the age-based offense and thus discoverable; nondisclosure was a Rule 4‑263 violation.	Held for Mulley: Rule 4‑263(d)(1) requires disclosure of all oral statements relating to the offense; nondisclosure was error and not harmless because it was sole evidence of age. Court vacated the under-21 conviction and remanded that count.
Were two cell phones (from Mulley) and three chargers (from Richardson) admissible or unduly prejudicial?	Phones/chargers were relevant to joint-possession/concerted action theory and admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.	Evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial (invites inference of drug activity from multiple phones).	Admissible: trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 5‑402/5‑403; prosecutor was precluded from arguing drug-dealer inference and did not do so.
Was there insufficient evidence to convict Mulley of possession of ammunition? (preservation)	N/A at trial — State relied on joint-possession theory and other evidence.	On appeal Mulley argued lack of proof he had direct possession of ammunition in co-defendant’s purse.	Not preserved: Mulley failed to articulate the particular sufficiency challenge at trial as required by Rule 4‑324, so appellate review denied.

Key Cases Cited

Brogden v. State, 384 Md. 631 (discretion to give supplemental jury instructions)
Lovell v. State, 347 Md. 623 (trial court discretion on supplemental instructions)
State v. Baby, 404 Md. 220 (when jury question makes explicit confusion on a central issue court must clarify)
Cruz v. State, 407 Md. 202 (discretion and limits on supplemental instructions)
Appraicio v. State, 431 Md. 42 (trial judges must balance accurate law and not invade jury province when answering juror questions)
Jefferson v. State, 194 Md. App. 190 (providing jury a written copy of statute/instruction is permissible)
Hughes v. State, 346 Md. 80 (booking questions and Miranda context)