Preston v. State
118 A.3d 902
Md.2015Background
- On March 14, 2009, a guest (Barnes) was shot at a party; Dontae Preston was charged with first‑degree murder and related firearm counts. Two eyewitnesses — Harrell and Nichelle Payton — testified for the State.
- Payton initially gave limited information; after Preston allegedly knocked on her door and she expressed fear, the State moved Payton into temporary protective housing for ~7–8 months and paid relocation expenses totaling about $13–14k.
- Defense sought the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:13 (“Witness Promised Benefit”), arguing the housing was a financial/other benefit that could have motivated Payton’s testimony; the trial court refused to give that particularized instruction.
- The jury received general credibility instructions (MPJI‑Cr 3:10) and convicted Preston; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether reasonable protective housing constitutes a “benefit” under MPJI‑Cr 3:13.
- The Court of Appeals held that reasonable protective housing is not a “benefit” within the meaning of Jury Instruction 3:13 and affirmed the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Preston) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable protective housing provided by the State to a witness counts as a "benefit" under MPJI‑Cr 3:13 | Housing (rent‑free relocation) is a financial/other benefit or inducement that could motivate biased testimony; thus 3:13 should be given | Protective housing is safety‑directed, not a quid pro quo like plea deals or cash payments; 3:13 targets direct, compensatory inducements | Reasonable protective housing is not a “benefit” for purposes of 3:13; no particularized instruction required |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 407 Md. 503 (2009) (Brady/ disclosure context where witnesses received favorable plea deals; explains disclosure obligations for agreements with witnesses)
- Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19 (1997) (evidence of agreements or deals with witnesses is powerful impeachment and must be disclosed)
- Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88 (2013) (three‑part test for when a requested jury instruction must be given)
- Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187 (2008) (application of MPJI‑Cr 3:13 where witness’s testimony related to an agreement to avoid charges)
- United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1977) (discusses jury treatment of witnesses in federal witness security program; court gave a tailored credibility instruction)
- United States v. Holmes, 229 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2000) (paid informant received relocation/compensation; general credibility instruction held adequate in lieu of a particularized instruction)
- Massachusetts v. Connor, 467 N.E.2d 1340 (Mass. 1984) (discusses relevance of witness protection benefits to credibility and limits on judicial questioning that invades the jury’s province)
- Massachusetts v. McGee, 4 N.E.3d 256 (Mass. 2014) (trial court’s general credibility instruction and vigorous cross‑examination were adequate when witness received relocation/housing assistance)
- Illinois v. McInnis, 411 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. App. 1980) (protective housing and relocation assistance treated as not requiring a special credibility instruction when general instructions covered bias)