Smith v. State
98 A.3d 444
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Victim Michael McQueen was found shot to death in a shared apartment on Sept. 26, 2006; no firearm was found at the scene, though a bag of ammunition was recovered in a bedroom. Gary Smith (roommate) gave changing statements to police about events that night and about a .38 firearm he owned.
- Smith was retried after the Court of Appeals reversed his first convictions; at the second trial (Aug–Sept 2012) a jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony.
- During voir dire Smith requested a mandatory Defense-Witness question (“Would you be less likely to believe a witness simply because they were called by the defense?”); the trial court declined to ask it and later, after voir dire, the prosecutor mistakenly told the court the question had been asked; defense counsel did not correct that mistake.
- Smith objected at the bench to the omission of the Defense-Witness question during the court s allotted time for objections; the court nevertheless refused to ask it, saying the topic had been covered elsewhere and the question was inappropriate.
- Trial evidence included: (1) testimony and items showing Smith owned multiple firearms and ammunition unrelated to the charged shooting; and (2) testimony from a witness (Sutherland) about a 2005 incident in which Smith handled a handgun roughly at a cookout.
- On appeal Smith raised multiple issues; the Court of Special Appeals reversed because the mandatory Defense-Witness voir dire question was not asked and also addressed two evidentiary issues likely to recur on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to ask mandatory Defense‑Witness voir dire question | The question was mandatory under Moore and Smith objected when it was omitted; omission requires reversal | Even though omission was error, defense counsel s failure to correct prosecutor s misstatement that the question had been asked "invited" the error and preserved no objection | Reversed: omission of mandatory Defense‑Witness question is reversible per Moore; defendant did not invite waiver by failing to correct prosecutor s mistake |
| Preservation / invited error doctrine | Objection was properly preserved under Md. Rule 4‑323; no affirmative act by defendant created the error | Failure to correct the prosecutor s factual misstatement waived the objection via invited‑error doctrine | Court rejected State's invited‑error argument; preservation established and reversal required |
| Admission of evidence of other gun ownership and ammunition | Such evidence was minimally relevant to the charged homicide and highly prejudicial; should be excluded under Rules 5‑401/5‑403 | Ownership was lawful and probative of possession/context; admissible | Erred to admit evidence of unrelated firearms/ammo: low probative value, high unfair prejudice; exclude on remand |
| Admission of prior incident (Sutherland) where Smith mishandled a gun | Testimony was impermissible "bad act" evidence under Rule 5‑404(b) tending to show propensity | Testimony showed knowledge/notice of danger from mishandling weapons (special relevance) | Close call but court did not abuse discretion admitting Sutherland testimony as bearing on knowledge/notice; admissible on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 412 Md. 635 (mandatory Defense‑Witness voir dire question; omission reversible)
- Smith v. State, 423 Md. 573 (prior reversal of Smith's original convictions)
- State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567 (invited error doctrine)
- Duckworth v. State, 323 Md. 532 (prior firearm incident relevant to notice/recklessness)
- Wynn v. State, 351 Md. 307 (framework for admitting Rule 5‑404(b) bad‑act evidence)