Rich v. State
205 Md. App. 227
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Rich was convicted by a jury in Caroline County Circuit Court of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, resisting arrest, and second-degree escape.
- The State charged eight counts; conspiracy, disorderly conduct, and failure to obey were dismissed before trial.
- On Feb. 20, 2009, Corporal Peterson stopped Rich’s companion vehicle for an inoperative taillight; marijuana fell from Rich’s hat when he was searched.
- Rich fled on foot twice; he was tackled, handcuffed between cars, and again fled after the handcuffs were applied the first time.
- Police later found crack cocaine in a Flowerbed near Patricia Blunt’s home; Blunt testified she found small bags inside the garden days after Rich’s arrest.
- Rich admitted marijuana ownership but denied crack cocaine; trial evidence included text messages suggesting drug-dealing, and expert testimony about drug trade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to prove possession with intent to distribute cocaine | Rich argues he did not possess or know cocaine or its illicit nature. | State argues proximity and control evidence support knowledge and possession. | Reversed: no sufficient proof of possession with intent to distribute. |
| Resisting arrest, whether merely flight suffices | Rich contends flight alone cannot sustain resisting arrest. | State maintains first flight constitutes resisting arrest under Maryland law. | Reversed: flight alone is not resisting arrest; no force, no resistance by force. |
| Second-degree escape sufficiency | Rich contends he was not in custody when he fled the first time; escape requires custody. | State asserts custody existed once Rich was lawfully arrested and restrained. | Affirmed: sufficient to sustain second-degree escape. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicolas v. State, 426 Md. 385 (Md. 2012) (defines resisting arrest elements and merger with assault)
- Busch v. State, 289 Md. 669 (Md. 1981) (distinguishes resisting arrest from hindering/obstructing an officer)
- Preston v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 225 Md. 628 (Md. 1961) (early formulation of resisting arrest elements)
- Barnhard v. State, 325 Md. 602 (Md. 1992) (formulation involving resisting or refusing to submit to arrest)
- Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (Md. 2003) (unit of prosecution and resisting arrest elements discussion)
- Titus v. State, 423 Md. 548 (Md. 2011) (obstructing/hindering officer in performance of duties)
- Cooper v. State, 128 Md. App. 257 (Md. Ct. App. 1999) (requires force for resisting arrest in certain contexts)