Reece v. State, 103 A.3d 1076

Background

Victim R.M., age 7 at trial, alleged repeated sexual abuse by neighbor Larry Reece (then ~65) during summer 2011, including oral and anal contact; medical exam revealed anal fissures and complaints of scrotal and anal pain.
R.M. made an out-of-court statement to pediatrician/child-abuse specialist Dr. Shukat on August 24, 2011; earlier statements at Shady Grove Hospital included initial denials and a recorded hospital interview by R.M.’s sister.
Reece was indicted for offenses alleged "on or about and between August 15, 2011, through August 19, 2011." At trial the State presented evidence limited to summer 2011 but not confined to those specific dates.
Pretrial, defense sought a § 11-304 hearing challenge to admit R.M.’s statements to Dr. Shukat and separately sought a pretrial “taint/competency” hearing to exclude R.M.’s live testimony as unreliable due to alleged suggestive interviews.
The circuit court (1) held a CP § 11-304 hearing, examined R.M. on the record, and admitted R.M.’s statements to Dr. Shukat as having particularized guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) denied a separate pretrial taint hearing, allowing challenge to reliability at trial; and (3) allowed proof of abuse occurring in summer 2011 despite variance from the exact dates in the indictment.
Jury convicted Reece on multiple sexual-offense counts; on appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, rejecting challenges to the § 11-304 admission, the need for a pretrial taint hearing, and the claim that the State was bound to the exact indictment dates.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of child’s out-of-court statements under CP § 11-304	Court failed to conduct sufficient hearing and did not properly assess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness for R.M.’s statements to Dr. Shukat	Court complied with § 11-304: held a hearing, considered statutory factors, examined the child on the record, and the findings were supported by evidence	Admission affirmed; trial court’s § 11-304 findings not clearly erroneous
Pretrial “taint”/competency hearing for child’s live testimony	Due process required a pretrial taint hearing (Michaels approach) to determine whether R.M.’s testimony was product of suggestive/coercive interviews and thus unreliable	No Maryland authority requires a separate taint hearing; competency and credibility issues are for the jury and can be addressed at trial with cross-exam and expert testimony	Denial of pretrial taint hearing affirmed; due process does not require such a hearing where defendant may contest reliability at trial
Variance between indictment dates and proof at trial	State was bound to the narrow dates alleged in the indictment; permitting proof without those dates prejudiced defense	Date is generally not an element; proof need only show offense occurred before indictment and within the statute of limitations	Allowing proof tied to summer 2011 (not exact alleged dates) affirmed; variance not fatal to conviction

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. State, 410 Md. 681 (discussing standard of review for § 11-304 factual findings)
Kusi v. State, 438 Md. 362 (judge’s factual findings supported by legally sufficient evidence are not clearly erroneous)
Crispino v. State, 417 Md. 31 (date alleged in indictment need not match proof so long as offense occurred before indictment)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Supreme Court decision relating to reliability determinations for eyewitness identification)
State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d 1372 (N.J. precedent adopting pretrial taint hearings for suggestively obtained child testimony; discussed and declined)
State v. Bumgarner, 184 P.3d 1143 (Oregon Ct. App. decision rejecting Michaels approach and explaining jury’s role in assessing interview taint)