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.
(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge,<br />
skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness<br />
<strong>of</strong> the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether<br />
a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.<br />
In Raithel v. <strong>State</strong>, 280 Md. 291, 372 A.2d 1069 (1977), this Court articulated the standard<br />
<strong>of</strong> review for the admissibility <strong>of</strong> expert testimony:<br />
[T]he admissibility <strong>of</strong> expert testimony is a matter largely within<br />
the discretion <strong>of</strong> the trial court, and its action in admitting or<br />
excluding such testimony will seldom constitute a ground for<br />
reversal. It is well settled, however, that the trial court’s<br />
determination is reviewable on appeal, and may be reversed if<br />
founded on an error <strong>of</strong> law or some serious mistake, or if the<br />
trial court has clearly abused its discretion.<br />
Id. at 301, 372 A.2d at 1074-75 (quotation marks and citations omitted). A reviewing court<br />
may find an abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion where the prejudice <strong>of</strong> the admitted testimony outweighs its<br />
probative value. See <strong>State</strong> v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630, 641, 552 A.2d 896, 901 (1<strong>98</strong>9).<br />
Prejudice that would “outweigh probative value involves more than mere damage to the<br />
opponent’s cause.” <strong>State</strong> v. Allewalt, 308 Md. 89, 102, 517 A.2d 741, 747 (1<strong>98</strong>6).<br />
II. Analysis<br />
On appeal, <strong>Gutierrez</strong> asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting<br />
<strong>No</strong>rris’s irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony on gang activity. Specifically, he<br />
points to five <strong>of</strong> <strong>No</strong>rris’s statements as sources <strong>of</strong> the error:<br />
(1) MS-13 is “the gang that we had seen the most violence with<br />
recently for the past four, four and a half years in this region . .<br />
. .”<br />
(2) The “13" in “MS-13" is “indicative <strong>of</strong> their alliance with the<br />
Mexican Mafia . . . .”<br />
6