Yates v. State
202 Md. App. 700
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Yates was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of second degree felony murder, handgun offenses, drug trafficking with a firearm, distribution of marijuana, and related offenses arising from the Worcester shooting; sentencing totaled 95 years consecutive.
- Ms. Worcester was shot and killed outside her Middle River home on January 7, 2009; the murder involved the drug distribution context surrounding Kohler and Yates.
- Trial began October 6, 2009; State witness testimony included witnesses who described the drug deal, the money as fake, and subsequent pursuit of Kohler by Yates and others, with gunfire observed by witnesses.
- Detective Hinton testified to a post‑shooting remark by Jagd (“I popped that [N... ]”) as a prior inconsistent statement, which the defense argued was hearsay and improperly used as substantive evidence.
- Appellant challenged the hearsay ruling, the sufficiency of the felony-murder and handgun-use convictions, the jury instruction, and preservation issues regarding the handgun evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of Jagd’s post‑shooting statement | Jagd’s statement was offered substantively and was hearsay | Admission prejudiced Yates by improper hearsay use | Harmless error; evidence was cumulative and not relied upon at closing |
| sufficiency of felony murder evidence | Death occurred in the res gestae/continuous transaction of the drug distribution | Death did not occur during the underlying felony; distribution completed earlier | Sufficient; death within a continuous transaction closely related in time, place, and causation |
| jury instruction on felony murder timing | The instruction omitted essential timing element | Pattern instruction properly conveyed causation and timing | Plain error review declined; pattern instruction weighs against plain error |
| sufficiency of evidence for handgun use | State must prove the gun used was a handgun; no firearm recovered | Issue not preserved; insufficient preservation arguments | Not preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. State, 342 Md. 230 (Md. 1996) (prior inconsistent statements admissible for impeachment; not substantive evidence unless proper conditions)
- Perez v. State, 420 Md. 57 (Md. 2011) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless error doctrine applied to evidentiary rulings)
- Robeson v. State, 285 Md. 498 (Md. 1979) (earlier testimony admissible if later testimony proves same content)
- Metheny v. State, 359 Md. 576 (Md. 2000) (felony murder linkage and res gestae discussion)
- Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260 (Md. 1976) (original articulation of elements for felony murder)
- Stouffer v. State, Jen (Md. 1998) (causation and )
- People v. Taylor, 112 Cal.App.3d 348 (Cal. App. 1980) (continuous-transaction theory for felony murder)
- GillIS v. People, 712 N.W.2d 419 (Mich. 2006) (res gestae approach to felony murder; continuous transaction)