Savage v. State, 212 Md. App. 1

Savage was convicted by a Wicomico County jury of multiple burglary-related offenses arising from a December 17, 2010 burglary at the Greene home.
The convictions included two counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary, two counts of conspiracy to commit third-degree burglary, one count of accessory before the fact to first-degree burglary, and one count of accessory before the fact to third-degree burglary.
The circuit court merged the two third-degree conspiracy convictions into the two first-degree conspiracy convictions and merged the third-degree accessory into the first-degree accessory for sentencing.
Sentencing comprised consecutive eight-year terms on two conspiracy-to-first-degree burglary convictions and one accessory-to-first-degree burglary conviction; two third-degree conspiracy convictions were not separately sentenced after merger.
Evidence showed two different potential conspiratorial outlines: one with Banks and one with Franklin, with some testimony suggesting a single overarching conspiracy and other testimony suggesting distinct conspiracies.
On appeal, the court held that one conspiracy conviction must be vacated to avoid double jeopardy, and it remanded for corrective sentencing while affirming the remaining rulings on other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two conspiracy to burglary convictions violate double jeopardy	Savage argues there was one overarching conspiracy.	State contends there were two separate agreements with Banks and Franklin.	One conspiracy conviction vacated; potential for two separate conspiracies not sustained.
Whether accessory before the fact to first-degree burglary merges with conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary	Merger required under required evidence or fundamental fairness.	Conspiracy and accessory do not merge; separate culpability exists.	No merger under required evidence; no reversible fundamental fairness error.
Whether cross-examination of Banks and Blades was improperly restricted	Confrontation rights require full cross-examination relevant to credibility.	Court properly limited collateral or prejudicial inquiries.	Limitations upheld; any error deemed harmless given other corroborating testimony.
Whether evidence that the occupant of the burglarized home was killed was improperly admitted	Death evidence was admissible under theory of conspiracy or allowed relevance.	Pretrial in limine exclusion should have barred such reference.	Court did not err; opening statements and trial conduct did not improperly introduce the death evidence.

Tracy v. State, 319 Md. 452 (1990) (one continuous conspiratorial relationship; multiple conspiracies not always distinct)
Ezenwa v. State, 82 Md.App. 489 (1990) (merger analysis where distinct conspiracy objectives exist)
Vandegrift v. State, 82 Md.App. 617 (1990) (merger when separate conspiratorial agreements not proven)
Manuel v. State, 85 Md.App. 1 (1990) (distinct objectives may create separate conspiracies; merger not automatic)
Cerro, United States v., 775 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1985) (illicit-sentencing issue when multiple conspiracies are alleged)
Frierson, United States v., 698 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2012) (instructional requirement to prove separate conspiracies; harmless error standard)