236 A.3d 735
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2020Background
- In 2010 Steven Freeman was shot; Charles Wallace was tried and convicted of attempted second-degree murder, first- and second-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, possession of a regulated firearm after a prior disqualifying conviction, and reckless endangerment; he was acquitted of attempted first‑degree murder.
- At trial the court gave an erroneous jury instruction on attempted second‑degree murder that conflated the intent standard for consummated second‑degree murder with the specific intent required for attempted second‑degree murder; trial counsel did not object.
- The victim testified about a prior tire‑slashing incident by Wallace (≈6 years earlier); trial counsel agreed the testimony was admissible as motive/identity and did not object.
- A stipulation about Wallace’s prior conviction was misstated at trial to say he had been previously convicted of a “crime of violence”; trial counsel acquiesced and did not object (contrary to Carter v. State limits on stipulation detail).
- The postconviction court found multiple deficiencies and granted a new trial on all counts; the State conceded error as to the instruction but appealed the scope of the remedy.
- The Court of Special Appeals held trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the defective attempted‑murder instruction and to the stipulation misstatement, but prejudice was limited: it vacated only the attempted second‑degree murder conviction and otherwise denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy for failure to object to erroneous attempted 2d‑murder instruction | Faulty instruction undermined verdicts; new trial on all charges required | Instruction only tainted attempted 2d‑murder; other convictions stand | Vacatur limited to attempted second‑degree murder only; other convictions unaffected |
| Admissibility of prior bad‑acts (tire‑slashing) and counsel’s concession | Testimony was inadmissible propensity evidence; counsel should have objected | Tire‑slashing was admissible for motive and identity; concession reasonable strategy | No deficient performance; testimony admissible for motive/identity; counsel not ineffective |
| Failure to object to stipulation wording stating prior "crime of violence" | Misstatement prejudiced firearm‑possession counts; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Even if misstated, no reasonable probability of different result on firearm counts | Counsel’s acquiescence was deficient, but Wallace failed to show prejudice; convictions stand |
| Cumulative‑error claim | Cumulative defects warranted new trial on all counts | Only two clear deficiencies; cumulative prejudice limited to attempted 2d‑murder | No cumulative‑error relief; cumulative effect did not require vacating remaining convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance framework: deficient performance + prejudice)
- State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156 (1990) (specific intent requirement for attempted murder clarified)
- State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270 (1992) (instructional error in multi‑count verdicts assessed per conviction)
- Carter v. State, 374 Md. 693 (2003) (limits on stipulating prior convictions; avoid labeling conviction types)
- Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416 (1990) (cumulative‑error relief available only in extreme, multiple‑lapse cases)
- Cirincione v. State, 119 Md. App. 471 (1998) (discussion of cumulative effect doctrine)
- Thornton v. State, 397 Md. 704 (2007) (relation of intent standards between second‑degree murder and first‑degree assault)
- Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580 (2000) (prior quarrels between victim and defendant admissible as motive)