State v. Hailes
92 A.3d 544
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Hailes was indicted in Prince George's County for murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- Melvin Pate, the murder victim, made a dying declaration identifying Hailes from a photographic array.
- Pate died before trial; the State sought to admit the dying declaration and the photographic identification.
- The suppression court excluded the dying declaration on Confrontation Clause grounds and suppressed the photo-identification as unreliably obtained.
- The State appealed under Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §12-302(c)(3); the Court of Special Appeals reversed the suppression and remanded for trial.
- The court ultimately held that the dying declaration is exempt from the Confrontation Clause and that the identification issue does not suppress the dying declaration or require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crawford v. Washington bars the dying declaration under Confrontation Clause | Pate’s dying declaration is historically exempt and thus admissible despite Crawford | Crawford requires exclusion of testimonial statements unless non-testimonial or admissible under historic exceptions | Dying declaration exempt from Confrontation Clause; Crawford does not apply to this case. |
| Whether the dying declaration survives under Maryland Rule 5-804(b)(2) despite Crawford | The rule permits dying declarations when declarant believes death is imminent | Crawford categories limit admissibility of out-of-court statements | Yes; the declaration is admissible as a dying declaration under Maryland law and not barred by Crawford. |
| Whether the extrajudicial identification was unduly suggestive and violates due process | Identification procedure was reliable and non-suggestive | Procedure was impermissibly suggestive and violative of due process | Not unduly suggestive; suppression reversed; identification admissible for trial purposes. |
| Whether addressing identification reliability factors was appropriate after Crawford | Reliability factors aid weighing but are not threshold grounds for exclusion | Reliability factors control exclusion if suggestiveness is found | Biggers/Manson factors do not govern Dying Declaration analysis; exclusion not required; ruling on identification does not affect admissibility of dying declaration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (redefines Confrontation Clause; creates testimonial/non-testimonial framework)
- Derry v. State, 358 Md. 325 (Md. 2000) (limits State right to appeal to constitutional grounds)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1895) (dying declarations as exception to hearsay with historic basis)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing and dying declaration acknowledged)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (reliability factors for pretrial identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability framework for admissibility of identifications)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (S. Ct. 2012) (identification reliability; threshold impermissive suggestiveness)
- Head v. State, 171 Md. App. 642 (Md. 2006) (discussion of Confrontation Clause relevance to dying declarations)
- Conyers v. State, 115 Md. App. 114 (Md. 1997) (identification procedures and due process reliability)