State v. Ebb
158 A.3d 965
| Md. | 2017Background
- In 1993 Jeffrey D. Ebb, Sr. was convicted of two counts of felony murder and related offenses arising from a 1992 barbershop shooting; he received life without parole plus concurrent terms. Key trial evidence included testimony by Stephanie Stevenson (an accomplice), eyewitness identification, and ballistics linking a Browning 9mm to the crime.
- Jerome House‑Bowman (Stevenson’s uncle) testified at trial that Respondent admitted planning a robbery and shooting the victims; his testimony was prominent in the State’s theory of intent and guilt.
- Twenty years later House‑Bowman signed a statement (dated Jan. 5, 2013) saying he had lied at trial to protect his niece. Ebb filed a pro se petition for writ of actual innocence under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 8‑301 relying on that recantation as "newly discovered evidence."
- The circuit court dismissed the petition without a hearing as only impeaching and because other evidence independently linked Ebb to the crimes; the Court of Special Appeals reversed and ordered a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the intermediate court’s judgment, holding that (1) Ebb’s petition otherwise met § 8‑301 and Rule 4‑332 pleading standards (subject to a Rule 4‑332(d)(9) averment issue), and (2) House‑Bowman’s recantation, if believed, could constitute newly discovered evidence creating a substantial/significant possibility of a different result, entitling Ebb to a hearing — but the circuit court must first determine whether to permit amendment to add the required averment of actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ebb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ebb’s petition met § 8‑301 and Rule 4‑332 pleading requirements | Petition included writing, description of newly discovered evidence (House‑Bowman statement), request for hearing, and factual allegations showing reliance on that testimony | State argued technical noncompliance (no explicit averment of actual innocence under Rule 4‑332(d)(9)) and contested sufficiency | Court: Petition substantially complied with most requirements; circuit court must decide on record whether allowing amendment to add (d)(9) averment would do substantial justice before ordering a hearing |
| Whether House‑Bowman’s recantation qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under § 8‑301 | Recantation (dated 2013) is new, could not have been discovered earlier, and was attached to the petition | State argued the statement was not proper "evidence" or not newly discovered (and was inherently suspect) | Court: On pleading standard, statement is properly alleged as newly discovered evidence sufficient to trigger a hearing inquiry |
| Whether the recantation could create a "substantial or significant possibility" of a different outcome | House‑Bowman’s trial testimony was central to the prosecution’s proof of intent and the felonious component of felony‑murder; if recanted, it could undermine key elements | State argued recantations are inherently suspect and other independent evidence (accomplice testimony, eyewitness IDs, ballistics) rendered the recantation merely impeaching | Court: Viewing allegations in the light most favorable to Ebb, the recantation could, if believed, create a substantial or significant possibility of a different result; entitles Ebb to a hearing under § 8‑301(e)(1) (subject to amendment on d(9)) |
| Procedural consequence of lacking an explicit averment of actual innocence under Rule 4‑332(d)(9) | Ebb (pro se) argued substantial compliance and attached the recantation; urged a hearing | State emphasized the Rule requires an express averment that petitioner did not commit the offense; absence is a defect | Court: Failure to include (d)(9) is not automatic dismissal; court must determine whether permitting amendment would do substantial justice (Rule 4‑332(h)/(i)(1)); if so, allow amendment and proceed to hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156, 31 A.3d 250 (discusses § 8‑301 pleading burden and when dismissal without hearing is appropriate)
- Hunt v. State, 443 Md. 238, 116 A.3d 477 (clarifies Rule 4‑332 requirements and substantial‑compliance/amendment principles)
- McGhie v. State, 449 Md. 494, 144 A.3d 752 (holds lack of explicit averment of innocence is not necessarily jurisdictional; considers substantial compliance)
- Smallwood v. State, 451 Md. 290, 152 A.3d 776 (explains § 8‑301’s remedial scope — relief limited to defendants who can allege actual innocence)
- Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 612, 751 A.2d 473 (explains importance of hearings and viva voce presentation when factual disputes and discretionary judgments are involved)