Smith v. State
165 A.3d 561
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- In 1987 Adeline Wilford was murdered; Jonathan D. Smith was convicted of felony murder and daytime housebreaking in 2001 and sentenced to life. Co-defendants: David Faulkner (convicted) and Ray Andrews (Alford plea to involuntary manslaughter).
- Years later the Innocence Project and Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project uncovered additional materials via MPIA requests: (1) undisclosed recorded conversations between investigator Bollinger and witness Beverly Haddaway (the "Bollinger–Haddaway tapes"); (2) an AFIS/palm-print match (post-conviction) identifying Ty Anthony Brooks as the source of palm prints on the utility-room window and washing machine; and (3) a 1987 witness (Keene) who observed a vehicle near the victim’s house around the time of the murder.
- At a consolidated evidentiary hearing, forensic and investigator testimony established that the palm‑print match post‑dated trial technology (MAFIS/AFIS palm searches added later) and that the tapes were not turned over to defense counsel; the State conceded the tapes should have been disclosed under Brady principles.
- The circuit court denied Smith’s Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence and his Motion to Reopen Post‑Conviction Proceedings, finding insufficient newly discovered evidence and deficiencies in due diligence for discovering some items; the court did find some evidence newly discovered but did not fully resolve whether it created a substantial possibility of a different result.
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals vacated the circuit court’s judgments and remanded: it held the Bollinger–Haddaway tapes and the palm‑print identification qualified as newly discovered evidence not discoverable with due diligence, and remanded for the trial court to decide whether those items create a substantial or significant possibility of a different result; it also vacated the denial of the motion to reopen and directed further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court abused discretion denying Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence | Newly discovered evidence (palm‑print match to Ty Brooks, Bollinger–Haddaway tapes, Keene vehicle sighting) speaks to Smith’s actual innocence and could not have been discovered in time; warrants relief under CP § 8‑301 | Evidence does not definitively exonerate Smith; some items were discoverable with due diligence; court did not err | Court: palm‑print match and Bollinger–Haddaway tapes are newly discovered and not discoverable with due diligence; remanded to determine whether they create a substantial possibility of a different result; Keene evidence was discoverable with due diligence (no relief on that ground) |
| Whether due diligence requires filing MPIA/FOIA requests to discover material the State had an obligation to disclose | Defense should be able to rely on State’s open‑file discovery; due diligence does not require filing MPIA to confirm State complied with Brady | Court/State argued defense could have searched police files or used other means | Court: due diligence does NOT require filing MPIA to double‑check State’s Brady compliance; State had disclosure obligation and defense may rely on open‑file discovery; circuit court erred to the extent it faulted defendant for not filing MPIA regarding the tapes |
| Whether AFIS/palm‑print identification was discoverable with due diligence | Palm‑print match unavailable before AFIS palm capability (added later); therefore not discoverable with due diligence | State argued defense could have compelled prints or compared known prints manually; trial file referenced suspects including Ty Brooks | Court: AFIS/palm match constituted newly discovered evidence not ascertainable with due diligence in the Rule 4‑331 window (match arose only after technology/database capability existed) |
| Whether circuit court properly denied Motion to Reopen Post‑Conviction Proceedings | Motion raised multiple grounds (Brady suppression, ineffective assistance, new evidence); reopening is in interests of justice | State conceded remand appropriate for further consideration | Court: circuit court abused discretion in procedure and scope of review; vacated denial and remanded for proper exercise of discretion and fuller consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Smallwood v. State, 451 Md. 290 (2017) (interpreting CP § 8‑301: petition limited to claim of actual innocence and explaining newly discovered evidence standard)
- Yonga v. State, 446 Md. 183 (2016) (explaining the substantial or significant possibility standard for actual‑innocence petitions)
- Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571 (2002) (recognizing that defense may reasonably rely on state open‑file discovery as satisfying Brady disclosure)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s obligation to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Jackson v. Sollie, 449 Md. 165 (2016) (trial court must exercise discretion according to correct legal standards; appellate review of abuse of discretion)