Ross v. State
155 A.3d 943
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Teresa Ross, a Sears sales associate in Annapolis, was convicted by a jury of three counts of theft (scheme to defraud) for facilitating fraudulent phone orders of expensive Samsung TVs between July and October 2014.
- The Atkins family (using third-party AmEx/Discover numbers) ordered ~46 high-end TVs totaling ≈$204,000; Ross processed 29 of those sales between Sept. 10 and Oct. 13, 2014, earning substantial commissions.
- Sears’ register sometimes generated fraud-detecting “prompts” requiring sales staff to call the card issuer and obtain an authorization code; management expressly instructed Ross that customers were not to supply codes.
- Surveillance, controlled deliveries, and a search produced stolen TVs and arrests; Ross told asset-protection she had taken codes from customers and said she had been “too busy” to call issuers.
- At trial the jury convicted Ross; she received suspended sentences, probation, and restitution. Ross appealed on sufficiency of mens rea, reliance on circumstantial evidence, missing jury instructions (good-faith/claim-of-right), and denial of new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ross) | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency — mens rea for theft | Evidence insufficient to prove Ross knowingly facilitated theft or had requisite intent | Evidence (failure to follow protocols, affirmative misrepresentations, motive via commissions, incriminating text) permitted inference of knowing facilitation or culpable omission | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find mens rea beyond reasonable doubt (Jackson standard) |
| Circumstantial-evidence standard | Conviction impermissible under West/Wilson rule unless all reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded | Modern precedent (Holland, Smith) rejects special disfavour of circumstantial evidence; Jackson standard controls | Rejected: court applies Jackson; appellate precedent (Smith) eliminates West’s old rule |
| Jury instructions — good-faith/claim-of-right; honest-belief defenses | Trial court failed to instruct sufficiently that State must disprove those defenses | Court actually instructed on both defenses and reinstructed on request; no contemporaneous objection | Not preserved: no timely objection at trial; claim fails under Md. Rule 4-325(e) |
| Motion for new trial — newly discovered evidence | Ross sought new trial claiming witness Anderson later said he didn’t know Ross / conspiracy had no women | Evidence was not newly discovered (Anderson testified at trial); movant lacked due diligence; earlier similar motions rejected | Denied: evidence was not newly discovered nor unavailable with due diligence; procedural requirements for Rule 4-331 unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (rejecting special instruction disfavoring circumstantial evidence)
- Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174 (Maryland Court of Appeals: Jackson standard applies equally to circumstantial-evidence cases; rejects West)
- West v. State, 312 Md. 197 (older articulation that conviction on circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530 (addressed West but left limited language; discussed in appellate history)
- Martin v. State, 218 Md. App. 1 (appellate reaffirmation that circumstantial evidence is not disfavored under modern precedents)