Riggins v. State
115 A.3d 224
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- John Riggins was convicted by a jury in Baltimore City of disarming a police officer, resisting arrest, and second-degree assault arising from a physical struggle after officers responded to a drug complaint at a vacant house.
- Three officers were involved; Officers Jeffrey Lilly and Carlos Moorer testified at trial; Moorer had prepared a Baltimore Police Department "use of force" report but it was not produced to defense counsel.
- Defense counsel requested the use of force reports during pretrial discovery; the prosecutor informed counsel she did not have access and advised subpoenaing the Police Department; the Department’s subpoena response did not include the reports.
- On the first day of trial, before the jury entered, defense counsel asked the court to order disclosure or conduct an in camera review; the court denied the request because the issue had not been litigated earlier and the prosecutor said she had never seen the reports.
- Moorer testified at trial that he had prepared a use of force report that ‘‘depicted what occurred’’ but did not have a copy; defense did not renew a request after Moorer’s testimony.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the trial court erred in refusing disclosure and vacated the convictions; it also addressed sufficiency of the resisting arrest conviction and discussed potential merger on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Riggins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not ordering disclosure of Moorer’s use of force report | Jencks/Carr/Rule 4-263 required disclosure of prior written statements by prosecution witnesses; trial court should have ordered production or in camera review | State conceded such reports are disclosable when authored by a testifying officer but argued the issue was not preserved / defense waived by not renewing request | Court: issue preserved; prosecutor had duty to obtain/disclose reports; court erred in denying relief; error not harmless; convictions vacated and remanded for disclosure proceedings |
| Preservation/waiver of disclosure claim | Defense preserved by raising ongoing disclosure obligation at trial; no ritual words required when issue timely tendered | State: defense only argued discovery violation and waived by not renewing after testimony | Court: preserved — defense raised disclosure at trial and court rejected it; no need to renew after denial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (arrest lawfulness) | Arrest was unlawful (investigatory stop, not probable-cause arrest); resistance justified | Evidence showed reasonable Terry stop, Lilly used limited force for safety, appellant assaulted officers—gave Moorer probable cause to arrest | Court: evidence sufficient; Lilly’s stop was a lawful investigatory detention and appellant’s force against officers supported resisting-arrest conviction |
| Whether resisting arrest and second-degree assault merge for sentencing | Riggins: convictions merge under required-evidence test when battery targets arresting officer | State: convictions separately supported | Court: issue rendered moot by vacatur; noted ambiguity in jury basis could cause merger on retrial and instructed on need to clarify jury instructions on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957) (defendant entitled to inspect prior written reports by government witnesses to determine impeachment use)
- Carr v. State, 284 Md. 455 (1978) (Maryland adoption of Jencks principles; denial of prior statement to impeach violates due process)
- Leonard v. State, 46 Md. App. 631 (1980) (right at trial to inspect prior statements of State’s witness is not limited to pretrial discovery)
- Robinson v. State, 354 Md. 287 (1999) (police internal/confidential records are constructively in prosecutor’s possession and may be disclosable)
- Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54 (1992) (court may do in camera review to balance privacy and defendant’s need; pretrial showing of need required for some confidential records)
- Fields v. State, 432 Md. 650 (2013) (trial court must review internal affairs files, not just summaries, and allow inspection if material contains anything "even arguably relevant and usable")
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)