Smith v. State
10 A.3d 798
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2010Background
- Smith was indicted for murder and use of a handgun in Montgomery County and convicted of second-degree depraved heart murder and handgun use.
- The State presented multiple versions of the events and a proffer of McQueen's state of mind; the defense contested causation and motive.
- Evidence showed McQueen died by a contact gunshot wound; Dr. Allan deemed the manner homicide, while defense experts favored suicide.
- Forensic evidence included blood spatter, GSR, DNA, and ballistics; the gun was disposed of by Smith after the incident.
- The trial court admitted and excluded various items of evidence and expert testimony; the jury ultimately upheld the verdict.
- Smith appealed on seven grounds, challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and trial conduct; the court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of decedent's state of mind | Smith argues McQueen's Georgia DUI remark was admissible to show state of mind. | State contends remoteness and trustworthiness render it admissible. | Court affirmed ruling excluding it; harmless error. |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction | Smith contends instruction over defense objection was improper and unsupported by evidence. | State asserts evidence generated the instruction and was permissible. | Instruction was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Hearsay of 'Gary is not right in the head' | Statement was admissible as nonhearsay to rebut motive. | Statement improperly admitted to show motive and prejudicial redirect use. | Admissibility upheld as nonhearsay; redirect use within discretion; no reversible error. |
| Cross-examination of blood stain expert bias | Defense sought cross-examination of bias from Vosburgh’s prior cases to undermine credibility. | Court properly limited collateral inquiries and prevented collateral attacks. | Court properly limited cross-examination; no reversible error. |
| Rebuttal testimony by Arden | Arden’s rebuttal testimony should have been excluded for lack of notice. | Any notice deficiency was harmless and Arden’s testimony proper rebuttal. | Discovery violation deemed harmless; Arden properly admitted as rebuttal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 66 Md.App. 246 (Md. App. 1986) (state of mind evidence requires reliability and proximity in time)
- Case v. State, 118 Md.App. 279 (Md. 1997) (state of mind exception to hearsay; remoteness analyzed)
- Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160 (Md. 1989) (voluntary intoxication and defense rights distinguished)
- Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574 (Md. 2001) (curative instructions and waiver distinctions; trial fairness)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (voluntary intoxication not a fundamental right; limits on instruction)
- Hagans v. State, 316 Md. 429 (Md. 1989) (unchosen uncharged lesser included offenses and trial strategy)