98 A.3d 362
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- On Feb. 22, 2012 Farrah Steward was stopped in Harford County, MD; officer found her license suspended and charged her with driving on a suspended license.
- Trial was a one-day jury trial; Steward testified she did not know her license was suspended because she was evicted Jan. 4, 2011 and homeless until Jan. 2012 and did not receive MVA mail.
- MVA records showed prior suspensions (1998, 2010–2011) and that Steward had been assessed points, attended a points conference in 2009, failed to attend a required driver improvement program in 2011, and her suspension remained in effect on Feb. 22, 2012. Notices were returned by the postal service.
- After the citation Steward completed the driver improvement program, updated her address, and the suspension was withdrawn in March 2012.
- Jury found Steward guilty; she was sentenced to one year with all but 30 days suspended and one year unsupervised probation. She appealed claiming (1) insufficiency of evidence on the knowledge element, (2) erroneous jury instruction ("knew or should have known"), and (3) ineffective assistance for failure to object.
Issues
| Issue | Steward's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on knowledge element | Evidence (returned MVA notices) insufficient to prove actual knowledge or willful blindness | Evidence (prior suspensions/points, failure to notify MVA of address) supported inference of willful blindness | Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find willful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jury instruction on knowledge element | Court erred by instructing jury it could convict if defendant "should have known" (lowers burden) | Instruction likely an attempt to simplify; prosecutor clarified correct standards in closing | Instruction was legally incorrect but not plain error here; appellate court declined to exercise plain error review |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to instruction | Counsel’s failure to object deprived Steward of effective assistance | Record does not show reasons for counsel’s omission; could be strategy; facts and law not so one-sided | Denied on direct appeal; ineffective-assistance claim reserved for post-conviction if appropriate |
| Preservation of sufficiency argument | Steward contends trial rulings preserved issue | Trial counsel withdrew Rule 4-324 particularized motion by testifying and failed to particularize at close of all evidence | Court found procedural defect but addressed the merits anyway and affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- McCallum v. State, 321 Md. 451 (1990) (knowledge/willful blindness required for driving with suspended license)
- Rice v. State, 136 Md. App. 593 (2001) (discussing actual knowledge versus deliberate ignorance standard)
- Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 (1989) (motion for judgment of acquittal withdrawn when defendant testifies)
- United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1992) (willful blindness distinct from objective "should have known" standard)