State v. Simms, 25 A.3d 144

Respondent Perry Simms was charged with murder and weapon offenses for a June 30, 2007 shooting in Baltimore.
Defense filed a Notice of Alibi Witnesses on February 5, 2008 listing eleven potential alibi witnesses; notice was redacted to show only Simms's father.
State admitted a redacted alibi notice and three jailhouse calls as evidence, arguing the notice showed consciousness of guilt in conjunction with the calls.
Simms did not testify or call alibi witnesses; the defense challenged admissibility of the alibi notice and sought no alibi jury instruction.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the alibi notice was inadmissible as irrelevant or prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held admission of the redacted alibi notice was reversible error; case remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the redacted alibi notice admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt?	State: alibi notice relevant with jailhouse calls to show falsity.	Simms: alibi notice was irrelevant; it is a procedural discovery tool, not evidence of guilt.	Admissibility error; not appropriate consciousness-of-guilt evidence.
May alibi notices be used for impeachment or as a party admission when the defendant did not testify or present alibi evidence?	State: alibi notice could impeach or rebut a de facto alibi defense.	Simms: notice cannot be used to implicate guilt; improper strategy to rely on a withdrawn or non-testifying defendant.	Not admissible for impeachment or to rebut de facto alibi defenses; admission improper.
Does failure to withdraw an alibi notice affect its admissibility?	State: withdrawal not necessary to admit; notice could be evidence of falsity.	Simms: withdrawal status should not govern admissibility; the notice remains inadmissible.	Withdrawal status does not cure admissibility; notice still inadmissible evidence.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the record and jury instructions?	State: other evidence of guilt was strong; error was harmless.	Simms: error was not harmless; jurors could infer guilt from the tainted alibi notice and tapes.	Error was not harmless; reversal and new trial warranted.

Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342 (Md. 2002) (consciousness-of-guilt framework and four-inference test)
Decker v. State, 408 Md. 631 (Md. 2009) (forms of consciousness-of-guilt evidence and probative limits)
Bedford v. State, 317 Md. 659 (Md. 1989) (probative value vs. prejudicial impact of consciousness-of-guilt evidence; four-prong test context)
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless-error standard for trial-referenced evidentiary error)
Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580 (Md. 2000) (impeachment and unreliability concerns in consciousness-of-guilt analysis)
Sorrell v. State, 315 Md. 224 (Md. 1989) (consciousness-of-guilt concepts and related conduct evidence)
Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557 (Md. 2007) (Thomas II; refinement of four-inference approach and admissibility)