Walls v. State, 142 A.3d 631

Background

In December 2012 Bryant Walls killed his estranged wife Okemia Walls and her boyfriend; he was tried and convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and one count of first‑degree burglary and sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus ten years concurrent for burglary.
Walls admitted the killings but argued lack of premeditation and claimed heat‑of‑passion manslaughter; the State contended murders were willful, deliberate, premeditated and occurred during a first‑degree burglary.
Key evidence: Walls’ post‑arrest statements, eyewitness observations of him stabbing the victims, forensic evidence (multiple stab wounds, a broken knife blade embedded in a victim), a butcher‑block of knives at his residence with the largest knife missing, and recorded jail conversations in which Walls admitted carrying a knife.
During the State’s opening, the prosecutor inadvertently told jurors they would “hear [Walls] testify” about swinging the knife; the court proposed a curative instruction which defense counsel refused and moved for a mistrial; the court denied the mistrial and Walls elected not to testify; the court later instructed the jury that the defendant has an absolute right not to testify.
Defense requested supplemental jury instructions on first‑degree burglary (reasonable belief of permission to enter; Hobby principle about temporary absence) which the trial court refused but later gave a tailored instruction responding to juror questions about “someone else’s dwelling” and defined “occupant” as someone with a legal right to be present.
Defense also moved for sanctions (dismissal or witness exclusion) for State letters sent to potential witnesses warning they might be contacted by defense investigators; the trial court denied sanctions, finding the letters not over the line and no demonstrated prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Walls' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s remark in opening that jurors would “hear [Walls] testify” — mistrial required?	The remark was reasonably susceptible of drawing an adverse inference against Walls’ Fifth Amendment right; a curative instruction would highlight the error and be inadequate; mistrial required.	The remark was an inadvertent single word; the court had already instructed jurors about the right not to testify and offered a curative instruction; any error was harmless.	Denied. Court did not abuse discretion. The remark was an isolated inadvertent misspeak; a prompt curative instruction would have been timely and effective; even if error occurred it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence.
Jury instructions on first‑degree burglary — whether a “reasonable belief” instruction and Hobby language were required	A reasonable‑belief instruction was generated by evidence (prior residence, DHR form listing Walls) and Hobby language should explain temporary absence does not eliminate possessory interest.	Walls offered no evidence he actually believed he had permission to enter that night; trial court’s instructions and later supplementation adequately covered the law.	Denied. No abuse of discretion. Walls failed to meet burden to produce evidence of a subjective belief; Hobby language was not triggered by the record.
Authentication of recorded jail phone call admitted without live custodian testimony	Recording not properly authenticated as Walls’ voice; admission erroneous.	Preservation issue: defense had not objected on voice‑identification grounds below; the call’s content (nicknames, details) provided sufficient circumstantial authentication.	Denied as preserved error; not preserved for appeal. In any event, circumstantial evidence sufficiently authenticated the call.
Pretrial motion for sanctions based on State letters to civilian witnesses	Letters chilled witness cooperation and improperly interfered with defense investigation; dismissal or witness preclusion warranted without need to show particularized prejudice.	Letters merely informed witnesses they could be contacted by defense and asked to notify the prosecutor; they did not prohibit contact; no demonstrated prejudice.	Denied. Court found letters ill‑advised but not sanctionable misconduct and Walls offered no evidence of actual prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Simpson v. State, 442 Md. 446 (2015) (announces test for whether prosecutor’s opening remarks are reasonably susceptible of an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence and evaluates harmlessness)
Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160 (1989) (Maryland common‑law rule that defendant may waive or veto a no‑adverse‑inference instruction given at close of evidence)
Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (1978) (Supreme Court holding a trial court may give a no‑adverse‑inference instruction over a defendant’s objection)
Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474 (1989) (holding that a reasonable belief of permission to enter is a complete defense to burglary where evidence generates that belief)
Hobby v. State, 436 Md. 526 (2014) (building retains character as a dwelling despite temporary vacancy)
Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574 (2001) (discusses mistrial standard and when curative instructions can obviate mistrial)