213 A.3d 779
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- Sweeney was tried for second-degree burglary and theft after a church shed was entered and a John Deere mower and donated sneakers were taken; value ≈ $5,000.
- A prior Howard County burglary report described a red Dodge pickup with partial D.C. plate “5035”; police linked that plate to Sweeney and obtained a warrant attaching a GPS tracker to his truck; tracker data placed the truck near the church the night of the theft.
- Police executed a search of Sweeney’s truck and hotel room weeks later and seized tools (bolt cutters, hammer, chisel, shovel, binoculars, etc.) and a pair of distinctive sneakers matching those missing from the shed.
- The State tried the case on a principal-in-the-first-degree theory (that Sweeney committed the crimes); no eyewitness, fingerprint, DNA, or boot-track evidence tied a second participant to the offense.
- After deliberations began, the jury asked whether two people who engaged in burglary but only one entered the shed could both be guilty; the court, over Sweeney’s objection, gave a supplemental accomplice (aiding-and-abetting) instruction and later admitted photos of the seized tools at trial.
- Sweeney was convicted; on appeal he argued (1) the supplemental accomplice instruction was ungenerated by the evidence and prejudicial because he had no chance to respond, (2) the burglary-tools evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and (3) the GPS warrant was defective. The Court of Special Appeals reversed on the first two points and affirmed denial of suppression of GPS data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff (State) Argument | Defendant (Sweeney) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a supplemental accomplice (aiding-and-abetting) instruction given mid-deliberation was proper | Jury question warranted clarification; accomplice instruction correctly states law and could be given; State later adopted that theory | Instruction was not generated by the evidence (no proof of any other participant) and was a new theory raised after closing, depriving Sweeney of opportunity to respond | Reversed: instruction was ungenerated by the evidence and prejudicial because it injected a new theory without chance to rebut |
| Admissibility of tools photos labeled "burglary tools" recovered from Sweeney’s truck weeks after the theft | Tools show preparation/intent and are probative of burglary; admissible | Tools were not used in this burglary, were not connected to the crime scene, and served only to suggest criminal propensity and unfairly prejudice the jury | Reversed: tools evidence irrelevant to this burglary and impermissibly suggested propensity; admission abused discretion |
| Validity of GPS-warrant and suppression of GPS-derived evidence | Warrant affidavit provided probable cause (matching red truck, partial plate, eyewitness account, pawn-shop use of license) | Affidavit contained misstatements/omissions (age mismatch, no stats on other partial-plate matches) undermining probable cause | Affirmed: totality of circumstances supplied a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidbury v. State, 414 Md. 180 (clarifies trial court discretion on supplemental instructions)
- Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276 (standard for when jury instructions are generated by evidence)
- Cruz v. State, 407 Md. 202 (supplemental instruction that introduces new theory can be reversible if defendant denied opportunity to respond)
- State v. Bircher, 446 Md. 458 (curing prejudice from supplemental instruction may require allowing additional argument)
- Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724 (evidence of unrelated "burglars' tools" inadmissible when unconnected to charged offense)
- Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 (definition of principal in the second degree / accomplice liability)
- U.S. v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.) (giving an aider-and-abetter instruction mid-deliberation without allowing additional argument is reversible)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)