State v. Hines
148 A.3d 1247
| Md. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 15, 2013, a robbery/shooting killed Michelle Adrian and wounded Brandon Gadsby; eyewitness identified two men as Dorrien Allen (orange jacket) and Tevin Hines (black beanie). Surveillance showed Allen with Hines near a store earlier that morning.
- Police detained and recorded an interview of Allen; Allen gave an alibi claiming he was at a friend "Mike's" (300 block Lyndhurst) and denied knowing the man in the surveillance video.
- Detectives challenged Allen’s account during the recorded interview, suggested they knew who the other man was, and referenced 301 Lyndhurst; the recording (with detectives’ commentary) was played at the joint trial.
- Hines moved pretrial to sever, arguing Allen’s recorded statement was hearsay inadmissible against Hines and its admission at a joint trial would unfairly prejudice him; the trial court denied severance but gave a limiting instruction.
- Jury convicted Hines of multiple counts including first-degree murder; the Court of Special Appeals reversed the denial of severance and this Court granted certiorari.
- The Court of Appeals held the judge abused his Rule 4-253(c) discretion because admission of non-mutually admissible statements (and detectives’ commentary) unfairly prejudiced Hines; reversal and new trial ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying severance under Md. Rule 4-253(c) when a codefendant’s recorded statement (inadmissible against Hines) was to be introduced | Most evidence was mutually admissible; the statement didn’t expressly name Hines and limiting instructions/redaction suffice; Bruton not implicated | Admission of Allen’s statement (and detectives’ accusatory remarks) would point to Hines as “Mike,” was hearsay inadmissible against him, and would unfairly prejudice him; severance required | Court held trial judge abused discretion: non-mutually admissible evidence was admitted and unfairly prejudiced Hines, so severance should have been granted |
| Whether McKnight’s rule (mandatory severance for non-mutual admissibility) applies per se to defendant joinder | McKnight shouldn’t be read to require per se severance for codefendant joinder; courts retain discretion to assess prejudice and use redaction/limiting instructions | McKnight should control and non-mutual admissibility requires severance | Court clarified McKnight applies as a per se rule in the narrow context of offense joinder; for defendant joinder non-mutual admissibility triggers a prejudice inquiry — here prejudice existed and judge abused discretion |
| Whether the limiting instruction and redaction cured any prejudice from Allen’s statement | Limiting instruction and redaction were adequate remedies; any linkage was attenuated | Limiting instruction insufficient because detectives’ commentary and surveillance evidence made the implication that “Mike” was Hines obvious to the jury | Court held the limiting instruction/redaction were inadequate under the facts; jury likely could not follow the limitation |
| Whether any error was harmless | The statement was more inculpatory than exculpatory; State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that error had no effect | Admission of the statement probably influenced the verdict given the strong implication tying Hines to “Mike” | Court held error was not harmless and ordered a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604 (Md. 1977) (held severance required in jury trials where evidence as to joined offenses would not be mutually admissible)
- Day v. State, 196 Md. 384 (Md. 1950) (trial court abused discretion by denying severance where limiting instruction could not cure prejudice from mutual accusations)
- Erman v. State, 49 Md. App. 605 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981) (denial of severance/mistrial was abuse of discretion where admission of evidence unique to one defendant cumulatively prejudiced the other)
- Payne v. State, 440 Md. 680 (Md. 2014) (wiretap evidence admissible against one codefendant required remand to assess whether joinder or cautionary instruction would avoid prejudice under Rule 4-253)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (holding that a nontestifying co-defendant’s confession that does not expressly name the defendant may be admitted with limiting instruction)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (addressing limits of redaction under Bruton when deletions are ‘obvious’ and still point to co-defendant)