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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

from which the logical inference of propensity naturally and inexorably will flow. In the absence of a contested issue, therefore, the only purpose of such evidence is “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Md. Rule 5-404(b). We must first look to whether the evidence offered to prove the appellant’s alleged motive was material. “The fact that evidence may fit one of the certified exceptions to the ‘other crimes’ rule does not mean that it is automatically admissible.” Jones v. State, 38 Md. App. 432, 437, 381 A.2d 317, 321 (1978). Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. It follows, then, that evidence of motive “serves no legitimate purpose,” and is therefore not material, when motive is not an essential element of any offense charged and when the prosecution is aware that it will not be contested. Martin v. State, 40 Md. App. 248, 254-55; 389 A.2d 1374, 1377-78 (1978). See also Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594, 624, 17 A.3d 676, 693 (2011) (quoting Harris v. State, 324 Md. 490, 500, 597 A.2d 956, 961 (1991)); Westpoint, 404 Md. at 488, 947 A.2d at 539 (citing Wynn, 351 Md. at 316, 718 A.2d at 592; Taylor, 347 Md. at 368, 701 A.2d at 392); Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602, 631, 645 A.2d 22, 36 (1994). The cases on which the majority relies, Faulkner, 314 Md. 630, 552 A.2d 896, Ayala v. State, 174 Md. App. 647, 923 A.2d 952 (2007), United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002), United States v. Robinson, 978 F.2d 1554 (10th Cir. 1992), People v. Gonzalez, 135 P.3d 649 (Cal. 2006), People v. McDaniels, 166 Cal. Rptr. 12 (Ct. App. 1980), People v. Bryant, 609 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993), Utz v. Commonwealth, 505 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Va. Ct. App. 1998), and State v. Nieto, 12 P.3d 442 (N.M. 2000), among others, 8
are consistent with, and indeed, follow, this rule. Thus, those cases do not refute the appellant’s argument that the gang-related evidence is inadmissible nor support its holding that it is. In Ayers, the defendant was charged with, “inter alia, assault, assault with intent to maim, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit a racially motivated crime, and committing a racially motivated crime in violation of § 470A(b)(3)(i).” 335 Md. at 608, 645 A.2d at 25. Then Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol., 1993 Cum. Supp.) Art. 27,§ 470A 3 required the prosecution to prove, as a part of its case, that the defendant committed the criminal acts because of the victim’s race. 4 Id. at 633, 645 A.2d at 37. The proof of defendant’s motive thus was essential for the prosecution to obtain a conviction and, for that reason, this Court found the evidence of motive to be material. Id. 3 By 2002 Md. Laws, Chap. 26 Article 27 of the Maryland Code was repealed and replaced by the Criminal Law Article. Former Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol., 1993 Cum. Supp.) Art. 27,§ 470A (3) (i) is now Maryland Code (2009) § 10-304 of the Criminal Law Article. As relevant, it now provides: “Because of another's race, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, disability, or national origin, or because another is homeless, a person may not: “(1) (i) commit a crime or attempt to commit a crime against that person; “(ii) damage the real or personal property of that person; “(iii) deface, damage, or destroy, or attempt to deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of that person; or “(iv) burn or attempt to burn an object on the real or personal property of that person ....” 4 Subsection (b) of § 470A made it a criminal offense to: “(3) Harass or commit a crime upon a person or damage the real or personal property of: “(i) A person because of that person's race, color, religious beliefs, or national origin.” 9
Page 1 and 2: HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez
Page 3 and 4: In this case we must determine whet
Page 5 and 6: Gutierrez told Alvarado-Pineda to s
Page 7 and 8: Norris was admitted as an expert, w
Page 9 and 10: (3) When a non-gang member uses han
Page 11 and 12: objection to the admission of evide
Page 13 and 14: Lords because the average juror is
Page 15 and 16: was a member of that gang, opened t
Page 17 and 18: State’s theory of the case was th
Page 19 and 20: 18th Street [G]ang.” Id. at 664,
Page 21 and 22: Q. What about [one of the other pas
Page 23 and 24: MS-13 undercurrent heightened the p
Page 25 and 26: in light of the mountain of other t
Page 27 and 28: This case considers the propriety,
Page 29 and 30: ‘[v]iolence . . . [u]p to death.
Page 31 and 32: a half years in this region...,’
Page 33: may be admissible when it has ‘sp
Page 37 and 38: which he did not dispute, the defen
Page 39 and 40: contrary evidence, that the defenda
Page 41 and 42: and the use of a handgun in the com
Page 43 and 44: material contested issue. Thus, thi
Page 45 and 46: the necessary elements of the crime
Page 47 and 48: magic passwords whose mere incantat
Page 49 and 50: that the appellant, because of this
Page 51 and 52: (2009). The majority only addresses
Page 53 and 54: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?