244 A.3d 1117
Md.2021Background
- Karen McGagh alleged a Verizon salesman, Glenn Trebay, cupped her breast and touched her inner thigh during a two-hour store visit; she filed a sworn criminal complaint and reported the conduct to police.
- A Verizon surveillance video (no audio) captured the entire interaction and did not show the alleged cupping or thigh contact; it did show brief lawful touches (shoulder, elbow, handshake).
- A District Court Commissioner reviewed McGagh’s sworn statement and authorized an arrest warrant; Trebay was arrested and later released when charges were dropped.
- At a bench trial the court admitted the surveillance video, found McGagh not credible, and convicted her of perjury and making a false statement to police; the court imposed an aggregate sentence (most suspended).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, applying de novo review after suggesting First Amendment petitioning rights were implicated and finding insufficient evidence of willful falsity.
- The Court of Appeals granted review, reversed the intermediate court, and held: (1) deferential Jackson standard governs here (no de novo needed); (2) the two-witness rule was satisfied by Trebay’s testimony plus the store video; and (3) the State proved willfulness/knowledge and materiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for sufficiency (deferential Jackson v. Virginia vs de novo) | State: apply deferential Jackson/Rule 8-131(c); no First Amendment claim was pleaded. | McGagh: de novo review required because reporting sexual assault implicates First Amendment petitioning rights. | Deferential Jackson standard applies; no de novo review because perjurious/false reports are unprotected and McGagh did not raise a constitutional claim. |
| Two-witness rule / corroboration of falsity | State: falsity proven by Trebay’s denial + independent corroboration from surveillance video. | McGagh: video without audio insufficient corroboration under two-witness rule; ambiguities remain. | Two-witness rule applies to falsity only; a silent surveillance video can independently corroborate a witness and satisfy the rule. |
| Mens rea (willful/knowing falsity) | State: trial court’s credibility findings support that McGagh deliberately lied (not a mistake/confusion). | McGagh: her statements were confused/traumatic mistakes, not deliberate falsehoods. | Court deferred to trial court; evidence supports finding of deliberate, willful/knowing false statements. |
| Materiality of false statements | State: false allegation about touching was material because it prompted investigation and an arrest warrant. | McGagh: most of her statement was truthful and would have produced probable cause regardless; the alleged touches were not material. | False assertion satisfied materiality—it was capable of influencing the Commissioner and officer (it produced the arrest and investigation). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes deferential sufficiency-of-evidence standard used on appeal)
- United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2012) (plurality: knowingly false/perjured statements are not protected by the First Amendment)
- Brown v. State, 225 Md. 610 (Md. 1961) (articulates two-witness rule and permits one witness plus independent corroboration)
- Manion v. State, 442 Md. 419 (Md. 2015) (applies Jackson standard in Maryland sufficiency review)
- Polk v. State, 378 Md. 1 (Md. 2003) (examines when de novo review is warranted for constitutional free-speech claims)
- Hourie v. State, 298 Md. 50 (Md. 1983) (upholds use of documentary corroboration to satisfy two-witness rule)
- Furda v. State, 421 Md. 332 (Md. 2011) (explains deference to trial court credibility findings and mens rea assessment)
- Mason v. State, 225 Md. App. 467 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (dashboard/video footage without audio can independently corroborate testimony)
- Greenwald v. State, 221 Md. 235 (Md. 1959) (definition of materiality: statement capable of affecting a decision of the tribunal)
- Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1945) (federal recognition of the two-witness rule for falsity)