182 A.3d 201
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Victim testified that a nude man forced entry, threatened her with a knife, touched her, and stole her purse; she later identified Devon Taylor from a photo array one month after the incident.
- Police did not collect or test the kitchen knife or obtain usable fingerprints from the door; no forensic evidence linking Taylor to the scene was presented at trial.
- At the close of instructions (no party requested it), the trial judge sua sponte told jurors there is no legal requirement that the State present scientific evidence; defense counsel timely excepted generally to that “scientific evidence” instruction.
- Taylor was convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to 30 years (consecutive terms); no timely direct appeal was filed.
- Post-conviction counsel obtained a consent order permitting a belated direct appeal; the Court of Special Appeals reviewed preservation, the propriety of the CSI-effect instruction, the jury-deliberation instruction, and sentencing contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s sua sponte “anti‑CSI effect” / scientific evidence instruction was preserved for appeal | Taylor says his timely general exception substantially complied with Md. Rule 4‑325(e) and preserved the issue | State says Taylor’s objection failed to state grounds as required by Rule 4‑325(e) and is unpreserved | Court: Taylor’s general objection substantially complied given context (Evans was then the controlling precedent and judge appeared to understand the objection); issue preserved |
| Whether the anti‑CSI instruction was an abuse of discretion (invaded jury province / relieved State’s burden) | Taylor: Instruction was preemptive, invaded jury province, and effectively plugged a hole in the State’s case | State: If error, it was harmless because eyewitness ID was sufficient | Court: Instruction was an abuse of discretion under Atkins/Stabb/Robinson but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given direct eyewitness ID and cumulative nature of any forensic evidence |
| Whether the trial judge coerced the jury by the “continue to deliberate” (Allen‑type) instruction | Taylor: Added prefatory/closing language coerced jury and deviated from MPJI‑CR 2:01 | State: Instruction substantially tracked MPJI and was within discretion; issue unpreserved and not plain error | Court: Issue unpreserved; no plain error—instruction adhered to spirit of MPJI and did not coerce verdict |
| Whether the sentence (30 years) relied on impermissible considerations (juvenile contacts, pending charges) | Taylor: Court impermissibly considered unadjudicated juvenile contacts and pending charges to justify substantial upward departure | State: Trial court properly considered reliable evidence of prior conviction/contacts and pending similar charges; guidelines are advisory | Court: No abuse of discretion; considerations were permissible and the record did not show impermissible motivation |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 436 Md. 560 (court disapproved of preemptive anti‑CSI instruction where not warranted by record)
- Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (anti‑CSI instruction given preemptively was improper; instruction can be curative only when warranted)
- Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (anti‑CSI instruction invaded jury province where missing forensic evidence was critical)
- Evans v. State, 174 Md. App. 549 (earlier Md. App. decision that approved a similar instruction in different factual posture)
- Allen v. State, 204 Md. App. 701 (retrospective application of Atkins/Stabb to cases pending on direct review/ belated appeals)
- Stringfellow v. State, 425 Md. 461 (harmless‑error framework and cautions about CSI questions/instructions)