Wallace-Bey v. State
234 Md. App. 501
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Tania Wallace-Bey shot and killed her boyfriend, Julius (Amensa) Whaley, in October 2007; she claimed she shot him after he raped her and because of a pattern of repeated abuse. She later attempted suicide and gave several statements to police and medical personnel.
- Wallace-Bey was convicted of first-degree murder in 2009; convictions were vacated on post-conviction review for ineffective assistance for failing to investigate battered spouse syndrome, leading to a retrial in 2016 where she was convicted again and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
- At the 2016 trial the State moved in limine to exclude: (1) testimony about any prior abuse by persons other than the victim, and (2) any statements the victim allegedly made to Wallace-Bey, arguing hearsay; the court granted both motions.
- During trial the court repeatedly sustained objections and struck testimony whenever Wallace-Bey or the defense expert tried to recount words Whaley allegedly said; the court also limited expert testimony about related conditions (PTSD, depression) and excluded Wallace-Bey’s history of abuse by others.
- The jury convicted Wallace-Bey; on appeal the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the exclusion of the victim’s words and related expert foundation was prejudicial error and requiring a new trial. The Court also addressed limits on expert testimony and improper cross-examination about another witness’s credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Wallace-Bey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of victim’s words as hearsay | Testimony of words spoken by Whaley was non-hearsay or admissible to show effect on Wallace-Bey’s state of mind and as evidence of psychological abuse under CJP § 10-916 | All out-of-court statements by Whaley are hearsay and inadmissible | Reversed: categorical exclusion was erroneous; many of the utterances were non-assertive (commands) or offered for effect, and exclusion was prejudicial |
| Exclusion of prior abuse by others | Prior abuse by others is relevant background and forms basis for expert opinion on battered spouse syndrome and Wallace-Bey’s mental state | CJP § 10-916 only permits evidence of abuse perpetrated by the victim; evidence of others is irrelevant and prejudicial | Reversed as to categorical exclusion: evidence of abuse by others admissible if it forms foundation for expert opinion and is relevant under Rule 5-401/5-403 |
| Limits on expert scope (PTSD, depression, syndrome history) | Defense expert must be permitted to explain syndrome history and links to PTSD/depression and how prior trauma informed opinion | Court may limit to battered spouse syndrome proper; some questions lacked foundation or were argumentative | Trial court should allow reasonable background and related-condition testimony where it aids jury evaluation of expert opinion; but retain Rule 5-403 control |
| Cross-examination asking if detective was "lying" | Such "were-they-lying" questions are improper and overly argumentative; objection should have been sustained | The objection was waived (argued as argumentative only) and any error harmless | Court: question was improper; objection should have been sustained; error not independently dispositive here but must be avoided on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Smullen v. State, 380 Md. 233 (battered spouse evidence explains perceived imminence and learned helplessness)
- Porter v. State, 455 Md. 220 (statutory context for battered spouse syndrome; syndrome relates to PTSD and can support self-defense)
- Stoddard v. State, 389 Md. 681 (hearsay definition—statement and purpose/prong analysis)
- Hunter v. State, 397 Md. 580 (improper "were-they-lying" cross-examination of defendant requires reversal)
- Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266 (testimony on credibility of other witnesses is improper)