Prince v. State
216 Md. App. 178
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2014Background
- Prince, ex-girlfriend Garbe, Sept. 7, 2010 incident in a Montgomery County parking garage, where Prince fired a rifle at Garbe as she hid by her car.
- Garbe’s car was vandalized earlier; a no-contact order was issued against Prince, who sought its withdrawal after learning of it.
- Prince moved for a continuance on March 23, 2012 to develop PTSD-related defenses based on a Fields Report; trial court denied the motion.
- State presented seven witnesses, including Garbe and two officers who used trajectory rods to illustrate bullet path; objections to expert status of testimony were raised but not timely preserved.
- Mental health evidence: Perkins’ evaluation found Prince competent and criminally responsible; Fields’ preliminary report offered but not completed in time for trial; trial proceeded with the defense’s request denied.
- Jury convicted Prince of attempted first-degree murder and related offenses; circuit court imposed life with 25 years suspended and other concurrent sentences; on appeal Prince challenges admissibility of trajectory/misfire testimony and denial of continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Detective Stafford’s misfire testimony | Stafford’s misfire testimony was expert. | Misfire testimony is lay and should have been objected to timely. | Harmless error; not preserved; cumulative and not outcome-determinative. |
| Admissibility of Officer Costello’s trajectory testimony | Costello’s trajectory testimony required expert qualification. | Trajectory analysis is lay testimony based on observation. | Admissible as lay testimony; properly limited by court. |
| Denial of continuance to develop PTSD defense | Needed continuance to present PTSD/brain injury evidence. | No abuse of discretion; evidence insufficient and delayed. | No abuse of discretion; denial sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragland v. State, 385 Md. 706 (2005) (exclusion of lay opinion when based on specialized training)
- Perry v. State, 357 Md. 37 (1999) (con temporaneous objections required for admissibility issues)
- Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 (2010) (cumulative evidence standards in harmless error analysis)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (identification of odors as lay testimony; training not determinative)
- In re: Ondrel M., 173 Md. App. 223 (2007) (police testimony about observed facts not automatically expert)
- Caldwell v. People, 43 P.3d 663 (Colo. App. 2001) (officer testimony about bullet holes and paths as lay testimony)