Thompson v. State
145 A.3d 105
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Norvel B. Thompson was tried for assault (April 2, 2014), and for assault, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a shotgun by a prohibited person (May 3, 2014). A jury convicted him of second-degree assault (May incident), reckless endangerment, and possession of a shotgun by a prohibited person; acquitted on one assault count and mistrial on first-degree assault.
- Facts: during a May 3, 2014 home encounter, Thompson entered holding a double-barrel shotgun, pointed it at his wife Somerville while she was on a phone call, threatened to kill her, advanced toward her, then set the gun down and left; Somerville and the caller contacted 911 and police responded.
- Pretrial: defense requested and the court ordered a competency evaluation; trial was reset beyond the 180-day speedy-trial limit (Hicks). Defense moved to dismiss for a Hicks violation; court denied.
- Defense requested two voir dire questions: (1) whether any juror has strong feelings about possession of firearms; and (2) whether jurors reject presumption of innocence. The court refused the firearm "strong feelings" question and also refused the presumption-of-innocence question as an instruction-stage matter.
- Trial evidence included Somerville’s testimony about the double-barrel shotgun, her perception the gun could fire, past observations of Thompson handling shotguns, and discovery of shotgun shells in Thompson’s belongings; parties stipulated Thompson had a disqualifying prior conviction.
- Appellate outcome: the Court of Special Appeals held no Hicks violation and no ex post facto problem with the shotgun-possession statute, but found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the requested "strong feelings" firearm voir dire question; convictions vacated and case remanded for new trial. Sufficiency-of-evidence issues were addressed and found adequate for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss for Hicks speedy-trial violation | Hicks violation because trial was reset beyond 180 days for a competency exam; waiting five weeks was unnecessary | Waiting for competency evaluation (requested by defense) is good cause to extend Hicks; defendant cannot benefit from delay he solicited | No error; competency evaluation constituted good cause to move trial date beyond 180 days |
| Whether conviction under P.S.A. §5-205(b) violated Maryland Declaration of Rights’ retroactive-restrictions (ex post facto) | Statute retroactively imposed a restriction based on a pre-enactment conviction | Statute applied to new post-enactment conduct (possession in 2014), so not retrospective or punitive as to past conviction | No ex post facto violation; statute applied prospectively to new criminal conduct |
| Whether court abused discretion by refusing defense voir dire questions (strong feelings about firearms; presumption of innocence) | Requested firearm "strong feelings" question would uncover bias; presumption-of-innocence question would reveal jurors unwilling to apply that principle | Questions about law/instructions are disfavored; other voir dire questions and narrative of charges addressed bias sufficiently | Reversed in part: refusal to ask firearm "strong feelings" question was an abuse of discretion and requires new trial; refusal to ask presumption-of-innocence question was proper |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions (assault, reckless endangerment, shotgun possession) | Insufficient: State failed to prove gun was operable/loaded; thus no intent/ability or risk, and possession element questionable | Victim’s perception, circumstantial evidence (noise, prior firearm use, shells found) support intent/operability; possession statute does not require operability | Evidence sufficient to support convictions (but convictions vacated on voir dire ground); court found operability not required for possession under §5-205 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310 (remedy for violation of statutory speedy-trial right is dismissal)
- Kennedy v. State, 436 Md. 686 (trial cannot continue until judge finds defendant competent beyond reasonable doubt)
- Moore v. State, 424 Md. 118 (operability not required to prove possession of a firearm under possession statute)
- State v. Shim, 418 Md. 37 (trial court must ask, on request, whether jurors have strong feelings about charged crime; avoid burden-shifting language)
- Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (reaffirmed requirement to ask strong-feelings question without burden-shifting)
- Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400 (Article 17 of Maryland Declaration of Rights construed as having same meaning as federal Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (types of laws that violate the Ex Post Facto Clause)