State v. Payne & Bond
104 A.3d 142
| Md. | 2014Background
- Payne and Bond were convicted in a joint trial of first-degree felony murder, kidnapping, and related weapons charges.
- Detective Brian Edwards testified about cell-site records to map call routes and locate towers near the crime scene.
- Defense objections argued Edwards should be qualified as an expert under Md. Rule 5-702; the trial court overruled.
- Six wiretapped conversations involving Bond (but not Payne) were admitted to suggest an alibi.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed for error in Edwards’s lack of expert qualification and for admissibility issues regarding wiretap evidence.
- Maryland’s highest court granted certiorari to decide expert qualification for cell-site testimony and the admissibility of the wiretap statements; the Court remands for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detective Edwards needed 5-702 expert qualification | Payne argues Edwards’s methodology requires expertise | Payne contends lay testimony suffices or that qualification is unnecessary | Yes; Edwards needed expert qualification; remand for new trial |
| Admissibility of six wiretap recordings against Payne as party-opponent/conspiracy evidence | State contends recordings are admissible as party-opponent or conspiracy origins | Payne argues no conspiracy to conceal was proven; recordings inadmissible | Not admissible against Payne as party-opponent; conspiracy foundation lacking; remand guidance |
| Bruton/Crawford constraints in joint trial regarding wiretap evidence | Six recordings are non-testimonial; Bruton/Confrontation Clause not violated; joinder considerations apply | ||
| Pretrial joinder prejudice and need for separate trials or cautionary instructions | Remand to assess prejudice under Rule 4-253; potential severance or cautionary instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragland v. State, 385 Md. 706 (2005) (limits on lay opinion and need for expertise under Rule 5-701/5-702)
- Blackwell v. State, 408 Md. 677 (2009) (HGN and expert/testimonial analysis; limits on lay testimony)
- Rivenbark v. State, 311 Md. 147 (1987) (conspiracy to conceal; admissibility of subsequent acts)
- Townes v. State, 314 Md. 71 (1988) (elements of conspiracy; unlawful agreement required)
- Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (1990) (conspiracy realm; agreement as essence of crime)
- State v. Johnson, 367 Md. 418 (2002) (conspiracy doctrine and agreement standard)
- United States v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920 (2006) (Federal approach to expert testimony on computer/forensic data)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (Confrontation Rule; co-defendant confessions and limiting instruction)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause)
- Cox v. State, 421 Md. 630 (2011) (Crawford framework in Maryland for testimonial determinations)