Snyder v. State, 63 A.3d 128

Two related trials arising from shootings on the appellant's former neighbors and former employers’ properties on April 26, 2009 (Neighbor Case No. 872; Crouse Case No. 871).
appellant was convicted in Case 872 of two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, burglary, malicious destruction of property, four counts of reckless endangerment, illegal possession of a firearm, and related handgun offences; in Case 871 he was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault, malicious destruction of property, and illegal possession of a firearm.
The Ray home was shot into at night; Ronald Testerman observed appellant exit a truck with firearms and fire at the Ray residence.
In the Crouse Case, detectives found a shotgun, a 9mm handgun, and ammunition in a safe at appellant’s home, and a 9mm handgun discovered in the truck.
Sentencing occurred on October 18, 2010; appellant timely appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence and the admissibility of “other crimes” evidence.
The court affirmed both judgments, addressing sufficiency of the assault evidence, admissibility of firearms-related testimony, and the legality of multiple illegal-possession-of-firearm convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Ray assault conviction supported by sufficient evidence?	Snyder argues no present ability to harm as Rays weren’t home.	State contends attempted battery doctrine requires only intent and acts; present ability not necessary.	Yes; sufficient evidence for attempted-battery variety of second-degree assault and risk-based inferences supported first-degree assault.
Was the trial court correct to admit other-crimes evidence in the Crouse Case?	Evidence of guns/ammunition at home unfairly prejudicial and lacks probative value.	Evidence tied to weapons and ammunition relevant to intent and connection to crimes.	Yes as to admissibility; any error was harmless; court properly balanced probative value and prejudice and omissions were cumulative.
Was the two illegal-possessions-of-firearm convictions proper (double jeopardy issue)?	Two separate gun possessions in short succession could violate double jeopardy.	Two different regulated firearms in possession justify separate convictions under Melton and Webb.	Proper; possession of two separate regulated firearms supports two counts; no double jeopardy violation.

Lamb v. State, 93 Md.App. 422 (Md. Ct. App. 1992) (definition of assault and attempt; proximity and present ability concepts)
Dixon v. State, 302 Md. 447 (Md. 1985) (assault includes attempted battery and placing in apprehension of imminent battery)
Harrod v. State, 65 Md.App. 128 (Md. Ct. App. 1985) (distinguishes attempted battery from other assaults; present ability concepts)
Webb v. State, 311 Md. 610 (Md. 1988) (multiple-possession considerations for illegal possession of a firearm; unit of prosecution)
Melton v. State, 379 Md. 471 (Md. 2004) (unit of prosecution for illegal possession of a firearm; multiple firearmsCultivation)
Faulkner v. State, 314 Md. 630 (Md. 1989) (Rule 5-404(b) evidentiary analysis for other crimes evidence (Faulkner three-step approach))