State v. Young
198 A.3d 806
Md.2018Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Steven Young’s residence in May 2014 and seized numerous controlled substances, a digital scale, and cash; Young was arrested and charged with possession and possession with intent to distribute.
- Young told officers he (and his wife) had prescriptions for some seized drugs; he later sought to introduce copies of alleged prescriptions at trial but did not attach them to his pretrial motion or place authentication on the record.
- At a pretrial, off-the-record chambers conference, the State moved in limine to exclude any prescription evidence as hearsay and not within the business-records exception; the trial judge granted the motion mid-argument without allowing Young to respond or proffer authentication.
- Young was convicted on multiple counts; the Court of Special Appeals reversed some convictions, holding properly authenticated prescriptions can be non-hearsay when used to establish a statutory defense.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court considered (1) whether the State preserved an authentication objection, (2) whether Young preserved his objection to exclusion given he had no opportunity to object, and (3) whether prescriptions are hearsay or admissible non-hearsay verbal acts under CR §§ 5-601 and 5-602(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation — authentication | State contended it raised authentication at trial (reference to lack of authenticity, absent witnesses, Bryant citation) | Young argued State did not reasonably raise authentication; references focused on hearsay/business-records exception | Court: State did not preserve an authentication objection; prosecutor’s remarks targeted hearsay, not independent authentication issue |
| Preservation — exclusion ruling | State argued Young waived objection by not responding to two dispositive bases presented | Young argued he had no opportunity to object when the judge cut off argument and granted motion mid-sentence | Court: Young had no opportunity to object; under Md. Rule 4-323(c) the exclusion was preserved for appeal |
| Hearsay — are prescriptions hearsay? | State: Prescriptions implicitly assert validity/authorization and thus are hearsay or implied assertions under Stoddard | Young: Prescriptions would be offered to establish the statutory defense (existence of a prescription) as a legally operative verbal act, not for truth of assertions | Court: Prescriptions may be admissible as non-hearsay verbal acts to prove the operative fact of prescription existence for CR §§ 5-601 / 5-602(2); trial court erred in blanket exclusion |
| Applicability to §5-602(2) possession-with-intent | State: §5-602 does not mention prescriptions; prescriptions are at most a factor and not a bar to §5-602(2) liability | Young: §5-602(2) incorporates §5-601’s possession defense ("except as otherwise provided") so prescriptions are relevant | Court: §5-602(2) incorporates the §5-601 possession defense; prescriptions admissible for that limited purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. State, 129 Md. App. 690 (Court of Special Appeals) (addressed admission/authentication of a toxicology report as a business record)
- Stoddard v. State, 389 Md. 681 (2005) (implied assertion doctrine; unintentional statements may be ‘‘statements’’ for hearsay analysis)
- Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1 (2005) (limiting Stoddard; contrasted implied assertions with mere circumstantial, non-assertive evidence)
- Garner v. State, 414 Md. 372 (2010) (verbal acts doctrine; utterances that have legal effect are non-hearsay)
- Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632 (2015) (standards for authenticating writings: testimony with personal knowledge and exemplar comparison)
- Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348 (preservation principles; when a ruling is the trial court’s "final word")