HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...

defendant was the person who committed the particular crime charged.
Yet, we view this as harmless error rather than grounds for reversal of Gutierrez’s
convictions. A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair trial, but not necessarily a
perfect one. Cf. Hook v. State, 315 Md. 25, 36, 553 A.2d 233, 239 (1989)(“The right of an
accused to a fair trial, although not a perfect trial, is paramount.”). We are mindful of the
rule that:
when an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless
a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the
record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot
be deemed “harmless” and a reversal is mandated. Such
reviewing court must thus be satisfied that there is no reasonable
possibility that the evidence complained of – whether
erroneously admitted or excluded – may have contributed to the
rendition of the guilty verdict.
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 659, 350 A.2d 665, 678 (1976) (footnote omitted). Looking
to the other evidence on the record, we are confident that the statement would not have
persuaded the jury to render a guilty verdict when it would not have otherwise done so.
Other properly admissible evidence established that Gutierrez was affiliated with MS-13 and
had traveled into rival gang territory looking for someone to kill as part of his initiation.
Upon spotting a crowd, he shouted “Mara Salvatrucha,” was insulted, and then opened fire
on the group. Three different eye witnesses named him as the shooter, one of whom viewed
approximately 400 photos over two separate days before positively and immediately
identifying the defendant when she was shown an array with his picture. Moreover, the
statement that MS-13 had displayed the most violence over recent years is not so shocking
22