Whack v. State
73 A.3d 186
Md.2013Background
- Whack was convicted of second-degree murder in Prince George’s County, with DNA evidence central to the State’s theory.
- DNA analysis showed a major contributor profile matching White on the headrest and a mixed sample on the armrest containing Petitioner’s DNA at 11 of 15 loci.
- Charak testified that the armrest mixture likely contained at least four contributors, with White matching 14/15 locations and Petitioner matching 11/15.
- The State’s rebuttal argued Petitioner’s DNA was in the truck; defense highlighted the 1 in 172 statistic vs. 1 in 212 trillion and suggested Bryant Whack as a possible source.
- Defense moved for mistrial; the court denied but instructed jurors to rely on their recollection of evidence.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper prosecutorial statements
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did rebuttal DNA statements warrant a mistrial? | Whack contends misstatement misled jurors about DNA significance. | State argues statements were invited response and not prejudicial. | Yes; improper closing remarks required reversal and remand. |
| Does invited response doctrine excuse improper closing? | Defense claims defense argument prompted the State’s response; doctrine should apply. | State says there was no proper trigger; doctrine not satisfied. | No; invited response did not cure prejudice here. |
| Were jury instructions sufficient to cure prejudice from DNA misstatements? | Instruction failed to negate misleading DNA implications. | Court gave general cautions; instructions should suffice given context. | No; curative instructions did not cure substantial prejudice. |
| Was the overall prejudice from DNA evidence outcome-determinative? | DNA was the only direct link; misstatement undermined fair trial. | Other strong circumstantial evidence supported conviction. | Yes; prejudice undermined fairness, warranting remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, — U.S.— (—) (DNA as significant scientific advancement in criminal justice)
- Duncan v. Commonwealth, 322 S.W.3d 81 (Ky. 2010) (DNA evidence misstatement can render trial manifestly unfair)
- Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (Md. 2005) (curative instructions and closing argument limits)
- Lee v. State, 405 Md. 148 (Md. 2008) (closing argument boundaries and evidentiary limits)
- Lawson v. State, 389 Md. 570 (Md. 2005) (improper closing arguments depriving a fair trial)