HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...
HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...
HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
objection to the admission <strong>of</strong> evidence ordinarily preserves for appellate review all grounds<br />
which may exist for the inadmissibility <strong>of</strong> the evidence.” Boyd v. <strong>State</strong>, 399 Md. 457,<br />
475–76, 924 A.2d 1112, 1123 (2007). <strong>Gutierrez</strong>’s counsel objected to “any testimony as to<br />
[MS-13] and [<strong>Gutierrez</strong>’s] involvement in a gang” no less than four times. Furthermore, the<br />
trial court granted a “standing objection to any reference that the <strong>State</strong> makes to MS-13” as<br />
well as <strong>Gutierrez</strong>’s continuing objection to any testimony presented by <strong>No</strong>rris that did not<br />
“pertain[] to the events <strong>of</strong> the evening <strong>of</strong> July 14th, ‘07.” The court did not ask, nor did<br />
<strong>Gutierrez</strong> disclose, the ground(s) for his continuing objection. Thus, this case is<br />
distinguishable from B. Sifrit where defense counsel articulated the reason that the proposed<br />
testimony was relevant and should be admissible, thereby waiving all grounds not specified.<br />
<strong>Gutierrez</strong> objected to all statements made by <strong>No</strong>rris that did not concern the night <strong>of</strong> the<br />
shooting (effectively all <strong>of</strong> <strong>No</strong>rris’s testimony) and now appeals the trial court’s admission<br />
<strong>of</strong> those statements. In short, defense counsel’s objections properly preserved this issue for<br />
appeal. We now address the merits <strong>of</strong> the action.<br />
B. Evidence <strong>of</strong> “Prior Bad Acts” And The Admissibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>No</strong>rris’s Testimony<br />
As provided in <strong>Maryland</strong> Rule 5-404(b), a court may not admit evidence <strong>of</strong> other<br />
crimes, wrongs, or acts that is <strong>of</strong>fered “to prove the character <strong>of</strong> a person in order to show<br />
action in conformity therewith.” Such evidence is known as evidence <strong>of</strong> “prior bad acts.”<br />
See Klauenberg v. <strong>State</strong>, 355 Md. 528, 547–49 & n.3, 735 A.2d 1061, 1071–72 & n.3 (1999)<br />
(surveying multiple jurisdictions in an attempt to define “bad acts” evidence and recognizing<br />
in dicta that some out-<strong>of</strong>-state cases have included gang membership as bad acts evidence).<br />
9