Stabb v. State
31 A.3d 922
| Md. | 2011Background
- Stabb was convicted of third-degree sexual assault and second-degree assault based largely on the testimony of Kaylen J., an eight-year-old victim at trial.
- The State relied on victim testimony and other witnesses; there was little to no physical evidence linking Stabb to the offense.
- Kaylen J. did not disclose penetration; no SAFE examination was performed, and the State did not produce physical evidence from such an exam.
- Before closing, the State sought a jury instruction stating there is no legal requirement to use a specific investigative technique or test.
- Defense objected, arguing the instruction was improper under Evans; the court questioned, but allowed argument and later gave the instruction prior to closing.
- Stabb was later sentenced; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and Stabb sought review, which this Court granted to address the instruction on anti-CSI effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly gave an anti-CSI instruction | Stabb | Stabb | Abused discretion; instruction improper prior to closing |
| Whether the instruction violated the State's burden beyond reasonable doubt | State | Stabb | Instruction improperly relieved the State of its burden |
| Whether the instruction was necessary as a curative measure or preemptive | State | Stabb | Preemptive use improper; should be curative if at all |
| Whether Evans and Atkins control the proper use of such instructions | State | Stabb | Under Atkins, still improper given facts; but guidance for curative use only |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (Md. 2011) (forensic-evidence instruction improper when it undermines reasonable doubt standard)
- Evans v. State, 278 Md. 197 (Md. 1976) (instruction that relieves burden analyzed for fairness)
- Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203 (Md. 1987) (trial judge remarks and instructions must not improperly influence jury)
- Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (Md. 2006) (instruction standards under Md. Rule 4-325(c))
- Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332 (Md. 1997) (abuse of discretion framework for jury instructions)
- In re Don Mc., 344 Md. 194 (Md. 1996) (conceptual standard for review of discretion)
- Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44 (Md. 1994) (role of jury instructions to aid understanding)