REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 1410

Septem ber Term , 2013

MICHAEL ANTHONY JOHNSON

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Meredith, W oodward, Friedm an,

JJ.

Opinion by

W oodward, J.

Filed: May

31, 2016M ich ael Jo h n so n , ap p ellan t, w as co n v icted b y a j u ry in th e C ircu it C o u rt f o r P rin ce

G eo rg e’s C o u n ty o f o n e co u n t o f stalk in g , ten co u n ts o f reck less en d an g erm en t, tw o co u n ts

o f h arassm en t, ten co u n ts o f h arass men t b y electro n ic m ail (“em ail”), an d f if ty co u n ts o f

v io latin g a p ro tectiv e o rd er. A s a resu lt, th e c o u rt im p o sed co n cu rren t an d co n secu tiv e

sen ten ces w h ich

, in th e ag g reg ate, to taled eig h ty -f iv e y ears an d n in ety d ay s’ im p riso n m en t.

O n a p p eal, ap p ellan t raises th e f o llo w in g q u estio n s, w h ich w e h av e slig h tl y 1

rew o rd ed :

1

. D id th e trial co u rt err b y f ailin g t o me r g e ap p ellan t’s ten

co n v ictio n s f

o r em ail h arassm en t u n d er S ectio n 3 -8 0 5 o f th e C rim in al L aw A rticle, w h ich p u n ish es a “co u rse o f co n d u ct”?

2

. D i d t h e trial co u rt err b y f ailin g to m erg e ap p ellan t’s f if ty

A p p ellan t’s q u estio n s as stated in h is b rief are: 1

1

. U n d er M d

. C o d e A n n ., Cr i m i nal L aw , § 3 -8 0 5

, w h ich p u n ish es

a “co u rse o f co n d u ct,” m u st ap p ellan t’s ten co n v ictio n s f o r

em ail h arassm en t m erg e?

2

. Wh eth er ap p ella

nt ’ s fi ft y co n v ictio n s f

o r v io latin g a p ro tectiv e

o rd er co v erin g co n d u ct o n n in e sep arate d ay s, th at resu lted in f if ty s e p arate o n e-y ear co n secu tiv e sen ten ces, m u st m erg e b ased o n th e d ay

each o ccu rred ?

3

. Wh eth er ap p ellan t’s co nvi c t i ons f o r reck less en d an g erm en t b y p o stin g m aterial o n C raig slist.co m m u st m erg e w h en th e tw o

co n v ictio n s co u ld h av e b een b ased o n th e sam e co n d u ct?

4

. D id th e trial co u rt err b y p e r m ittin g th e v ictim to testif y in reb u ttal to d etails o f an assau lt f o r w h ich ap p ellan t w as n o t o n trial?

5

. D id th e trial co u rt err in ad m ittin g p rin to u ts o f em ails th e

v ictim said w ere sen t b y

ap p ellan t?co n v ictio n s f o r v io latin g a p ro t e c tiv e o rd er in to n in e

co n v ictio n s, b ased o n co n d u c t o c cu rrin g o n n in e sep arate d ay s?

3

. D id b y trial co u rt err b y f ailin g to me r g e t w o o f ap p ellan t’s reck less en d an g erm en t co n v ictio n s b ased o n t h e c o n d u ct o f

p o stin g m aterial to C raig slist.o rg ?

4

. D id th e trial co u r t err b y p erm ittin g th e v ictim to testif y in reb u ttal to ap p ellan t’s p rio r co n v ictio n s o f assau lt an d

v io latio n o f

a p ro tectiv e o rd er?

5

. D id th e trial co u rt err in ad m ittin g p rin to u ts o f em ails th e

v ictim said w ere sen t b y

ap p ellan t?

For the f ollowing reasons, we shall answer these questions in t h e n e g a t i v e and,

accordingly , af

f irm the judgm ents of

the circuit court.

B A C K G R O U N D

A n g ell William s an d ap p ellan t w ere m arrie d a n d i n 2 0 1 0 h ad a so n to g eth er; th ey

sep arated in th e su m m er o f 2 0 1 0 an d d iv o rced in S ep tem b er 2 0 1 1

. In Ju ly 2 0 1 0

, William s

o b tain ed a p ro tectiv e o rd er ag ain st ap p ellan t. O n F eb ru ary 2 7

, 2 0 1 1

, ap p ellan t w as arrested

f o r v io latin g th e p ro tectiv e o rd er. A p p ellan t w en t to j ail, b u t w as released th e sam e n ig h t.

O n F eb ru ary 2 8

, 2 0 1 1

, ap p ellan t attack ed William s as sh e w as g ettin g in to h er car; h e w as

arrested f o r seco n d d eg ree as s a u l t
, f o u n d g u ilty o f v io latin g th e p ro tectiv e o rd er an d

assau ltin g William s, an d sen ten ced to a y ear o f im p riso n m en t.

O n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 , William s co u ld n o t lo g in to h er M S N em ail acco u n t. Wh en sh e

tried to reset h er p assw o rd

, sh e n o ticed th at th e reco v ery em ail ad d ress listed w as n o t h ers,

b u t in stead w as th at o f M ik ej o h n so n 5 1 6 @y ah o o .co m , ap p ellan t’s em ail ad d ress. T h at sam e

2d ay , th ree to f o u r m en cam e to William s’s h o m e an d said th ey w ere resp o n d in g to a sex ad

o n C raig sli s t

. O n e s u c h m an sh o w ed William s th e ad o n h is p h o n e; th e ad co n tain ed o ld

p ictu res o f William s, h er n am e an d ad d ress, as w ell as an in v itatio n f o r m e n t o c o m e to

William s’s h o m e an d h av e sex w ith h er. William s, w h o h ad n o t p laced th e ad

, called 9 1 1

.

T h e p o lice cam e to h er h o m e, b u t said th at th ere w as n o th in g th ey co u ld d o w ith o u t p ro o f

o f w h o created th e ad

.

O n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, William s receiv ed m essag es f ro m sev eral o f h er f

r i e n d s o n

F aceb o o k

, ask in g William s w h y sh e created an o th er F aceb o o k p a g e

. William s w en t o n

F aceb o o k an d saw th e n ew p ag e, w h ich

, lik e th e C raig slist ad

, co n tain ed o ld p ictu res o f

William s, as w ell as h er ad d ress an d p rices listed f o r v ario u s sex acts. William s reco g n ized

th at th e p ictu res w ere f

ro m h er h ack ed M S N em ail acco u n t. A lso o n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, William s

receiv ed an em ail m essag e f ro m G m ail n o tif

y in g h er th at sh e h ad attem p ted to reset th e

p assw o rd f

o r h er em ail acco u n t. William s n o tif ied G m ail th at sh e h ad n o t attem p ted to reset

h er p assw o rd

. O n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, ap p ro x i ma t e l y f o rty m en cam e to William s’s h o m e in

resp o n se to sex ad s. O n e o f th ese m en sh o w ed h er th e C raig slist ad to w h i c h h e w as

resp o n d in g . T h e ad read :

T h is is real, rap e m e. I w an t so m e g u y s to k n o ck o n m y d o o r. Wh en I o p en it, sm ack m e, p u sh m e d o w n , rip m y p an ties o f f

, f u ck m e an d leav e m e. N o talk in g , j u st rap e m e an d g o

. If y o u r [ sic] d o w n , n o

em ails, j u st co m e o v er, 7 3 0 0 1 8 th A v e, A p artm en t 2 0 2

, H y attsv ille,
M ary lan d 2 0 7 8 3

, m ap q u est it an d co m e o n o v er. R eal m en step u p

.

O n Ju n e 2 3

, 2 0 1 2

, as m en w ere still co m in g to William s’s h o m e, William s receiv ed

3em ails f

ro m M ik ej o h n so n 5 1 6 @y ah o o .co m , ap p ellan t’s em ail acco u n t. T h e f irst em ail read :

“Y o u h av in g f

u n y et.” William s rep lied : “S to p [ ] sen d in g p eo p le to m y h o u se to h av e s e x

w ith m y k id s an d m e. T h at’s so licitatio n .” A p p ellan t resp o n d ed

, “D o n ’t k n o w w h at y o u ’re

talk in g ab o u t, b u t m ay

b e w e c a n w o rk so m eth in g o u t so I can m ak e it sto p f o r y o u .”

William s resp o n d ed

, “M ay b e y o u r p ro b atio n o f

f icer can h elp m e;” a co n d itio n o f ap p ellan t’s

p ro b atio n w as to h av e n o co n tact w ith William s. A p p ellan t rep lied :

3 0 1

- 6 9 9 -3 6 4 4

, A g en t Jo n es, call w h en y o u ’re read y , d o n ’t see h o w th at w ill sto p y o u r p ro b lem sin ce I h eard y o u r ad d ress is p o sted o n a lo t o f ad u lt w eb sit e s; an d I th in k I co u ld h elp y o u g et th em d o w n

. B u t, i f I ’ m n o t h ere, m ay b e th ey w ill stay u p th ere. Wh o ev er p u t th em u p t h ere m

u st n o t k n o w it’s so m e crazy p eo p le o u t th ere. B e saf e f ro m leav in g y o u r h o u se. H o p e n o b o d y h an g s aro u n d

, b u t, lik e I said , m ay

b e w e can w o rk so m eth in g o u t.

T h e e ma il ex ch an g es co n tin u ed ; th at sam e d ay , William s f iled a p etitio n f

o r a p ro tectiv e

o rd er ag ain st ap p ellan t an d receiv ed a tem p o rary p ro tectiv e o rd er. S h e also called 9 1 1 an d

g av e th e p o lice w h o resp o n d ed a co p y o f t h e tem p o rary o rd er. T h e p o lice said th at th ey

w o u ld attem

p t to serv e ap p ellan t w ith su ch o rd er.

William s receiv ed an o th er em ail f ro m ap p ellan t o n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 , w h ich read :

Y o u r lif e w asn ’t m ean t to b e n o rm al. Y o u can t r y to b e so m eth in g y o u ’re n o t, b u t y o u r lif

e h as n ev er b een n o rm al f o r 3 2 y ears, so w h y d o y o u th in k it’s g o in g to ch an g e. It’s o k ay to lie to o th er p eo p le lik e y o u r lif e is so m eth in g it’s n o t, b u t w h at ab o u t y o u rself ? It w ill alw ay s catch u p to y o u

. T h is is h o w y o u r lif e h as b een an d alw ay s b e. L o v e alw ay s, b y e B ig H ead

.

M en w ere still co m in g to William s’s h o m e at all h o u rs o f th e d ay an d n ig h t. William s

w o u ld tell th e m en th at th e ad s w ere f ak e an d ask w h at w eb site h ad p o sted th e ad ; th en sh e

4w o u ld co n tact t h a t w e b site an d ask it to tak e d o w n th e ad

. O n e ad p o sted o n

B lack p lan et.co m

read :

H ello

, I’m A n g ell. I’m lo o k in g f o r sex an d sex o n ly

. I sw allo w

. I d o

an al an d g ro u p s u p to f

iv e g u y s at o n ce. If y o u ’ r e n o t in M ary lan d

, D C o r V irg in ia, p lease d o n ’t b o th er m e. If y o u d o liv e in th e D M V

, h o lla at y o u r g irl w ith th at w et-w et an d slo p p y h ead

. I liv e in R ig g s H ill C o n d o s, so if

y o u clo se b y , h it m e u p

.

William s called 9 1 1 ag ain o n Ju n e 2 6

, 2 0 1 2

, i n a n attem p t to p u t a sto p to th e m en

resp o n d in g to th e ad s. T h e p o lice ad v ised h er to p ress ch arg es f o r v io latio n o f a p ro tectiv e

o rd er, w h ich sh e d id th e n ex t d ay

.

O n Ju n e 2 9

, 2 0 1 2

, th e circu it co u rt h eld a h e arin g o n th e f in al p ro tectiv e o rd er.

William s sh o w ed th e co u rt th e em ails an d ad s. T h e co u rt g ran ted th e f in al p ro tectiv e o rd er

an d o rd ered ap p ellan t to n o t h av e an y co n tact w ith William s.

O n Ju ly 6

, 2 0 1 2

, as m en w ere still co m in g to William s’s h o m e, William s receiv ed an

em ail f ro m rif f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m

. William s h ad a f rien d w ith th e stag e n am e o f R if f raf f

S h aw n th at ap p ellan t k n ew , b u t William s an d S h aw n n ev er ex ch an g ed em ails. T h e em ail

said : “It w ill b e ab o u t 2 5 -4 0 f o lk s co m in o v er b etw een n o w an d S atu rd ay , so k eep d o in y o u

an d g iv in y o u r n u m

b er o u t an d s u c k i n a n d f

u ck in

. I w ill h av e y o u w o rk in in n o tim e.” A

f ew h o u rs later, William s receiv ed a seco n d em ail f r o m th e sam e ad d ress; it read : “G et a

h o tel ro o m to m o rro w a n d I w ill m eet y o u th ere. F u ck m e th e w h o le d ay an d it w ill sto p

.

D o n ’t an d th ere w i ll b e n o p eace f o r y o u

. I w ill h av e f

o lk s co m in o v er th ere u n til y o u

m o v e.”

5William s, w h o su sp ected th at th e em ails w ere co m in g f ro m ap p ellan t, rep lied to th e

e-m ail in th e h o p es th at ap p ellan t w o u ld id en tif y h im self , an d to f ig u re o u t “h o w h e co u ld

b e set u p ” so th at p o lice co u ld arrest h im

. William s also called t h e p o l i c e to ask th em f o r

h elp in catch in g ap p ellan t; sh e su g g ested th at th e p o lice “b o o k th e h o tel ro o m an d h av e h im

g o th ere an [ d ] arrest h im .” T h e p o lice to ld William s to f ile ch arg es, w h ich sh e d id th at d ay

.

William s also b o u g h t a sh o tg u n to p ro tect h erself an d h er f o u r ch ild ren f

ro m ap p ellan t.

William s receiv ed ad d itio n al em ails f ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m ad d ress o n

Ju ly 9

, w ith f

u rth er d em an d s th at William s m eet h im at a h o tel ro o m

. William s rep lied

,

“S u re. I’ll d o it. I d o n ’t h av e a cred it card o r d eb it card th o u g h .” A lth o u g h William s h ad

n o in ten tio n s o f m eetin g h im

, sh e h ad h o p ed th at ap p ellan t w o u ld sto p p o stin g th e ad s, as

m en w ere still co m in g to h er h o m e.

O n Ju ly 1 3

, 2 0 1 2

, William s receiv ed an em a il f ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m

em ail ad d ress w ith a n ew ad

. T h e ad

, w h ich co n tain ed th e sam e o ld p h o to s o f William s th at

w ere f ro m h er h ack ed M S N em ail acco u n t, as w e l l a s h e r ad d ress, read : “C o m e o v er,

lo o k in g f o r g o o d d ick .” T h at sam e d ay , William s receiv ed ad d itio n al em ails f ro m th e

rif f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail ad d ress p ressu rin g h er to m eet h i m at a h o tel. Wh en

William s ref

u sed

, sh e receiv ed th e f

o llo w in g resp o n se: “It’s co o l. I’m g o in g o n th e k id s[ ’]

sch o o l w eb site an d p o st y o u r ad f o r sex sin ce it d o n ’ t ma t t e r .” William s receiv ed an o th er

em ail o n Ju ly 1 3 w ith th e p o st o n th e sch o o l w eb site, w h ich co n tain ed th e sam e p ictu res an d

read :

6H i, m y n am e is A n g ell M ary William s. I’m th e m o th er o f [ A C ] an d [ C C ] an d I w ill h av e sex w ith th ere [ sic] teach ers in retu rn f o r th em g ettin g p assin g g rad es. It c an b e f o r h o w ev er lo n g th ey atten d th e sch o o l an d th ey g et p assin g g rad es. I liv e at 7 3 0 0 1 8 t h A v en u e, A p artm en t 2 0 2

, H y attsv ille, M D 2 0 7 8 3

, an d h av e d o n e th is at all th ere [ sic] o th er sch o o ls an d d o n ’t m in d d o in g it h ere as w ell. T h an k

y o u , an d h o p e w e h av e a g reat y ear to g eth er.

O n Ju ly 1 4 , William s receiv ed th e f o llo w in g em ail:

T o w h o m m ay read th is, th e p art o f th e in v estig atio n th at lead s to read th is, I’m n o t so rry f

o r th e ev en ts th at h ap p en ed to M s. William s. A ll th e ch a n c e s t o n o t let it g et th is f ar, b u t sh e ref

u sed to
, so h er b lo o d is n o t o n m

y h an d s. S h e sh o u ld h av e k n o w n b y n o w th at all sh e h ad

to d o w as o n e th in g , an d sh e p lay ed a j o k e w ith h er o w n lif e. I k n o w th at y o u ’re read in g th is af ter th e f act an d lo o k at m e as a m o n ster, b u t

m ay b e sh e w an ted it th is w ay

. T h at’s w h y sh e ch o se to p lay w ith h er lif e. T h at b ein g said

, I w an t to say g o o d -b y e to m y m o th er an d f

ath er

an d k id s. I lo v e th em v ery m u ch

. I w as a m an p u sh ed i n to th is,

p u sh ed to d o th is. I h o p e A n g ell’s m o m w ill tak e care o f h er k id s af t er th is; an d I h o p e th ey w ill g ro w u p an d n o t m ak e th e sam e

m istak es. Y o u r lif

e is n o t a g am e b ecau se y o u sh o u ld alw ay s d o all

y o u can d o . T o o b ad A n g ell d id n ’t. B y e.

William s co n tin u ed to recei v e e mails f ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail

ad d ress o n Ju ly 1 6

, 2 0 1 2

, ag ain p ressu ri n g W i l l i a ms to b o o k a h o tel ro o m an d th en

th reaten in g to k ill h er. O n e em ail read :

T h e b est p art ab o u t it is w ith all th e p eo p le co m in g to y o u r h o u se at

ran d o m , y o u d o n ’t k n o w w h en it w ill b e m e. I started th is p lan a lo n g tim e ag o

. T h e p eo p le in th e b u ild in g k n o w all ab o u t th e traf f ic y o u h av e h ad

, p eo p le o u tsid e y ellin g y o u r n am e. T h ey o p en th e d o o r f o r f o lk s so w h en I co m e, it w o n ’t ev en lo o k stran g e, w alk rig h t u p an d k ick th e d o o r in an d y o u ’ll see th e rest.

A n o th er em ail read :

I w an t to leav e y o u a l o n e a n d w o u ld h av e if y o u h ad g o t th e ro o m

.

7A n d y es, I h av e ch an g ed

. T h at’s w h y I’m try in g to g iv e y o u a ch an ce,

b u t I k n o w y o u th in k I’m j o k in g o r j u st try in g to b u lly y o u , b u t y o u

w ill kn o w th a t I’m f

o r rea l w h en I tie y o u u p a n d f u ck y o u in th e

a ss w ith a b ro o m stick. I’m n o t g o in g to ju st kill y o u , b u t p u t y o u th r o u g h p a in f

irst. T h at’s h o w I k n o w th e p o lice w ill k ill m e b ecau se I’m g o in g to tak e m y tim e w ith y o u , b u t en o u g h w ith all th e t a l k

. S e e y o u so o n

. It’s o k ay

. I d o n ’t ex p ect to liv e th ro u g h th is

an y w ay

.
(E m p h asis ad d ed ).

William s receiv ed an o th er em ail th at read : “I lo v e it w h en I h av e th e ch an ce to p ro v e

my p o in t. I sw ear o n m y g ran d m o th er’s g rav e y o u w ill d ie. Y o u can b eliev e m e o r n o t

u n less y o u r b ab y is su p erm an an d can sto p b u llets. S ee y o u so o n .” William s receiv ed an o th er

em ail th at d ay th at read : “Y o u ’ll w ish y o u w as b ack i n y o u r c h i l d h o o d g ettin g rap ed

, th e

t h i n g s I ’ m g o in g to d o to y o u , th en leav e y o u r d ead rap ed b o d y in th e w o o d s.” Willia ms

called th e p o lice o n Ju ly 1 6

, 2 0 1 2

, af ter receiv in g an e-m ail th at stated “th at h e w as o u tsid e

m y h o u se . . . co m e o n to th e b alco n y , I’ll sh o o t y o u f ro m th ere.”

W i lliam s receiv ed ad d itio n al em ails f ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m ema i l

ad d ress o n Ju ly 1 7

, 2 0 1 2

. O n e su ch em ail co n tain ed a v id eo o f so m eo n e b ein g rap ed ; th e

m essag e read : “Y o u sh o u ld let th e g irls w atch th is so th ey w ill k n o w w h at th ey g o t co m in g .”

L ater th at d ay , William s receiv ed an o th er em ail ask in g : “A r e th e g irls th ere? I co u ld h av e

th em ch erries b u sted b ef

o re y o u g et b ack .” O n Ju ly 1 7

, m en w ere still co m in g to William s’s

h o m e “at th e sam e f

req u en cy ” as th ey

h ad earlier in th e su m m er.

O n Ju ly 1 8

, 2 0 1 2

, William s receiv ed m o re em ails f ro m the r i ffr a ffs ha

wn@y a hoo .co m

em ail ad d ress; o n e su ch em ail ref erred to William s as “B ig H ead ,” ap p ellan t’s n ick n am e f o r

8William s, an d w as sig n ed “L o v e y o u alw ay s, Y o u r M ik e.”

O n Ju ly 1 9

, 2 0 1 2

, W illiam s receiv ed an em ail f ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m

em ail ad d ress th at ref

erred to William s as “th e m o th er o f m y ch ild .” A n o th er em ail William s

receiv ed th at d ay f

ro m th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail ad d ress co n tain ed an ad w ith th e

sam e p h o to s an d William s’s ad d ress, w h ich read : “I’m a sin g le p aren t lo o k in g to m ak e so m e

ex tra cash

. I sw allo w

. I d o an al an d g ro u p s.” T h e em ail stated : “I h av e p rin ted o u t 2 5 0 o f

th o se an d w ill b e p assin g th em all o v er th e D M V

, p u ttin g th em in b a r b e r s h o p s, m etro

statio n s, m alls, g as statio n s , o f f i c e b u ild in g s, strip clu b s, so b e read y .” A ro u n d f if ty m en

cam e to William s’s h o m e o n Ju ly 1 9

.

O n Ju ly 2 2

, 2 0 1 2

, W i l l i a ms r e c e i v e d an o th er em ail f ro m th e

rif f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail ad d ress th at read : “I’m g o in g to h o n k th e h o rn

. I’m in th e

red tru ck .” A t th at p o in t, William s, w h o w as in sid e h er ap artm en t, h eard a h o rn h o n k

. S h e

w en t d o w n to th e lan d in g o f h er ap artm en t b u ild in g an d saw a red tru ck b u t co u ld n o t see

th e d riv er’s f

ace; William s called 9 1 1

. T h e p o lice arriv ed an d arrested th e m an in th e tru ck

,

w h o w as n o t ap p ellan t.

A cco rd in g to William s, ap p ro x im ately 4 0 0 m en , “m ay b e m o re,” cam e to h er h o m e

b etw een Ju n e 2 0 an d Ju ly 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 . M en cam e ev ery sin g le d ay d u rin g th at sp an o f tim e,

an d th ey w o u ld arriv e at all h o u rs o f th e d ay an d n ig h t. William s r e c e i v ed n o ad d itio n al

em ails f ro m th e rif f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m

em ail ad d ress af

ter early A u g u st 2 0 1 2

.

O n A u g u st 1

, 2 0 1 2

, P rin ce G eo rg e’s C o u n ty p o l i c e offi c e rs ex ecu ted a search w arran t

9f

o r ap p ellan t’s m o th er’s h o m e, w h ich w as th e p h y sical ad d ress asso ciated w ith th e IP

ad d ress f o r th e rif

f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail acco u n t. T h e p o lice seized m u ltip le

co m p u ters, alo n g w ith p h o to id en tif icatio n s o f ap p ellan t, o n e o f w h ich w a s f r o m t h e

M ary lan d N atio n al C ap ito l P ark an d P lan n in g C o m m issio n

. A p p ellan t w as n o t p resen t at

th e tim e o f

th e search

.

A p p ellan t w as arrested o n A u g u st 1 4

, 2 0 1 2

. A j u ry trial w as h eld in th e circu it co u rt

f ro m Ju n e 1 0 th ro u g h Ju n e 1 2

, 2 0 1 3

. A s p rev io u sly stated

, th e j u ry co n v icted ap p ellan t o f

o n e co u n t o f stalk in g , tw o co u n ts o f h arassm en t, ten co u n ts o f h arassm en t b y electro n ic m ail,

ten co u n ts o f reck less e n d a n g e r men t, an d f if ty co u n ts o f v io latin g a p ro tectiv e o rd er. O n

Ju ly 1 8

, 2 0 1 3

, th e co u rt sen ten ced ap p ellan t to a to tal o f eig h ty -f iv e y ears an d n in ety d ay s’

in carceratio n , b ro k en d o w n as f o llo w s:

• 1 co u n t o f

stalk in g : 5 y ears, w ith cred it f o r 3 5 1 d ay s serv ed

• 1 co u n t o f

h arassm en t: 9 0 d ay s, co n secu tiv e

• 1 co u n t o f

h arassm en t: 9 0 d ay s, co n cu rren t

• 4 co u n ts o f

reck less en d an g erm en t: 5 y ears, co n secu tiv e

• 6 co u n ts o f

reck less en d an g erm en t: 5 y ears, co n cu rren t

• 1 0 co u n ts o f h arassm en t b y electro n ic m ail : 1 y ear,

co n secu tiv e

• 5 0 co u n ts o f

v io latin g a p ro tectiv e o rd er: 1 y ear, co n secu tiv e

A p p ellan t f

iled a tim ely ap p eal o n A u g u st 5

, 2 0 1 3

. A d d itio n al f acts w ill b e p resen ted

as n ecessary

to reso lv e th e q u estio n s p resen ted

.

D IS C U S S IO N

I. M erg er o f

E m a il H a ra ssm en t C o n v ictio n s

A p p ellan t asserts th at, b ecau se th e statu te p ro h ib itin g em ail h arassm en t w as am en d e d

1 0i n 2 0 1 2 t o ad d th e lan g u ag e “co u rse o f co n d u ct,” an d h is ten co n v ictio n s w ere p art o f a

sin g le co u rse o f co n d u ct, th o se co n v ictio n s m u st m erg e. H e co n ten d s, th eref o re, th at th e

ten sep arate co n secu tiv e sen ten ces h e receiv ed f o r su ch co n v ictio n s w ere illeg al an d

n ecessitate a remand o f

h is case f

o r resen ten cin g

.

T h e S ta t e resp o n d s th at th e em ail h arassm en t statu te’s u n it o f p ro secu tio n “is each

series o f acts o v er tim e th at sh o w s a co n tin u ity o f p u rp o se to an n o y o r a l a rm , th at o ccu rs

af ter th e p erso n h as b een w arn ed o r ask ed to sto p .” A cco rd in g to th e S tate, “th e sen d in g o f

each series o f h arassin g em ails is a sep arate crim e.” T h e S tate n o tes th at th e statu te is

m o d eled af

ter th e telep h o n e m isu se statu te, an d th at th is C o u rt h eld th at each o f tw o sep arate

in cid en ces o f

rep eated telep h o n e calls co n stitu ted a d istin ct p attern o f co n d u ct.

“T h e co u rt m ay co rrect an illeg al sen ten ce at an y tim e.” M d

. R u l e 4

- 3 4 5 (a). T h e

C o u rt o f A p p eals h as n o ted th at

“[ w ] e h av e co n sisten tly d ef in ed th is categ o ry o f ‘illeg al sen ten ce’ as lim ited to th o se situ atio n s in w h ich th e i l leg ality in h eres in th e

sen ten ce itse l f

; i.e.
, th ere eith er h as b een n o co n v ictio n w arran tin g

a n y sen ten ce f

o r th e p articu lar o f

f en se o r th e sen ten ce is n o t a p erm itted o n e f

o r th e co n v ictio n u p o n w h ich it w as im p o sed an d

, f

o r eith er reaso n , is in trin sically an d su b stan tiv ely

u n law f u l.”

B rya n t v. S ta te , 4 3 6 M d

. 6 5 3

, 6 6 2 -6 3 (2 0 1 4 ) (q u o tin g C h a n ey v. S ta te , 3 9 7 M d

. 4 6 0

, 4 6 6

(2 0 0 7 )). S p ecif

ically

, a co u rt’s f

ailu re to m erg e a sen ten ce ren d ers th e sen ten ce o r sen ten ces

actu ally im

p o sed “illeg al.” P a ir v. S ta te , 2 0 2 M d

. A p p

. 6 1 7

, 6 2 4 (2 0 1 1 ) (“A f ailu re to m erg e

a sen ten ce is co n sid ered to b e a n ‘ i l leg al sen ten ce’ w ith in th e co n tem p latio n o f [ R u le

4 -3 4 5 ] .” (citatio n o m itted )).

1 1A p p ellan t w as co n v icted u n d er th e 2 0 1 2 v ersio n o f th e em ail h arassm en t statu te, M d

.

C o d e ( 2 0 0 2

, 2 0 1 2 R ep l. V o l., 2 0 1 5 C u m

. S u p p .), § 3 -8 0 5 o f th e C rim in al L aw A rticle

(“C L ”) w h ich p ro v id es:

(a) D efin itio n s.

— (1 ) In th is sectio n th e f o llo w in g w o rd s h av e th e

m ean in g s in d icated

. (2 ) “E lectro n ic co m m

u n icatio n ” m ean s th e tran sm issio n o f in f o rm atio n , d ata, o r a co m m u n icatio n b y th e u se o f a co m p u ter o r

an y o th er electro n ic m ean s th at is sen t to a p erso n an d th at is receiv ed b y th e p erso n

.
(3 ) “In teractiv e co m

p u ter serv ice” m ean s an in f o rm atio n

serv ice, sy stem
, o r access so f tw are p ro v id er th at p ro v id es o r en ab les

co m p u ter access b y

m u ltip le u sers to a co m

p u ter serv er, in clu d in g a sy stem th at p ro v id es access to th e In tern et an d cellu lar p h o n es.

( b ) P ro h ib ited

— (1 ) A p erso n m ay n o t m alicio u sly en g ag e i n a

co u rse o f co n d u ct, th ro u g h th e u se o f electro n ic co m m u n icatio n , th at alarm s o r serio u sly

an n o y s an o th er:

(i) w ith th e in ten t to h arass, alarm

, o r an n o y th e

o th er;

(ii) af ter receiv in g a reaso n ab le w arn in g o r req u est
to sto p b y o r o n b eh alf

o f th e o th er; an d

(iii) w ith o u t a leg al p u rp o se.

(2 ) A p erso n m ay n o t u s e an in teractiv e co m p u ter serv ice to

m alicio u sly en g ag e in a c o u rse o f co n d u ct th at in f licts serio u s

em o tio n al d istress o n a m in o r o r p laces a m in o r in reaso n ab le f ear o f d eath o r serio u s b o d ily

in j u ry w ith th e in ten t:

(i) to k ill, in

j u re, h arass, o r cau se serio u s em o tio n al d istress to th e m in o r; o r

(ii) to p lace th e m in o r in reaso n ab le f ear o f d eath o r serio u s b o d ily

in j u ry

.

1 2T h is C o u rt co n sid ered th e m erg er o f co n v ictio n s u n d er a p rio r v ersio n o f th e em ail

h arassm en t statu te in D o n a ti v. S ta te , 2 1 5 M d

. A p p

. 6 8 6

, cert. d en ied

, 4 3 8 M d

. 1 4 3 (2 0 1 4 ).

T h e earlier v ersio n o f th e statu te d id n o t co n tain lan g u ag e ref errin g to th e p ro h ib ited acts as

“a co u rse o f co n d u ct.” N ev erth eless, D o n ati ar g u ed th at “th e u n it o f p ro secu tio n is th e

p attern o f h arassin g e-m ails, n o t th e in d iv id u al e-m ails, an d th eref o re, th e c i r c u i t c o u rt

im p o sed an illeg al sen t e n c e b y im p o sin g sep arate, co n secu tiv e sen ten ces f o r each

c o n v ictio n .” Id

. at 7 2 3 (in tern al q u o tatio n m ark s o m itted ). In su p p o rt o f h is a r g u me n t
,

D o n ati co n ten d ed

, as ap p ellan t d o es h ere, “th at am en d m en ts to C .L

. § 3 -8 0 5 in 2 0 1 2

, w h ich

ex p licitly p ro h ib it a co u rse o f co n d u ct, sh o w th e o rig in al in ten t th at th e u n it o f p ro secu tio n

f o r em ail h arassm en t is

. . . a p attern o f h arassm en t.” Id

. (in tern al q u o tatio n m ark s o m itted ).

We rej ected D o n ati’s arg u m en t, h o ld in g th at th e u n it o f p ro secu tio n w as each ema i l s en t.

We ex p lain ed :

P u rsu an t to th e lan g u ag e o f th e statu te, th e u n it o f p ro secu tio n

is “ th e tra n sm issio n o

f in fo rm a tio n o r a co m m u n ica tio n .” N eith er o f th ese term s a r e d ef

in ed in th e statu te, so w e lo o k to th e d ictio n ary d ef in itio n s o f

th ese term s.

T ran sm is s io n is d ef

in ed as “an act, p ro cess, o r in sta n ce o f

tran sm ittin g

. ” C o m

m u n icatio n is d ef

in ed as “an act o r in stan ce o f

tran sm ittin g ,” “in f

o rm atio n co m m

u n icated ,” an d “a v erb al o r w ritten

m essag e.” B o th terms co n tem p la te o n e in sta n ce, i.e., a s i n g u l a r

a ct.

W h en th e G en e r a l A s s em b ly in ten d s to m a ke th e u n it o f
p ro secu tio n a co u rse o f co n d u ct, i t h a s m a d e th a t in ten t clea r. F o r ex a m p le, tw o sta tu t e s in ef f ect a t th e tim e th e em a il sta tu te

w a s en a cted in 1 9 8 9 sp ecif ica lly ref erred to “ rep ea ted ca lls” o r a

“ co u rse o f co n d u ct.” T h e leg isla tu re d id n o t u se th is la n g u a g e in

1 3th e sta tu te p ro h ib itin g h a ra ssm en t b y electro n ic m a il.

We ag ree w ith th e S tate th at th e lan g u ag e o f th e statu te h ere is

u n am b ig u o u s. A cco rd in g ly

, it is n o t ap p ro p riate to in f er a d i f f eren t

m ean in g b ased o n th e leg islativ e h isto ry

.

Id . at 7 2 4 -2 5 (b o ld em

p h asis ad d ed ) (f

o o tn o te o m itted ) (citatio n s o m itted ).

A s ap p ellan t co rrectly p o in ts o u t, th e G en eral A ssem b ly ad de d th e lan g u ag e “a co u rse

o f co n d u ct” to th e statu te in 2 0 1 2 . 2 0 1 2 M d . L aw s, C h ap . 4 2 . A p p ellan t th u s arg u es th at

th e statu te as am en d ed ch an g es th e u n it o f p ro secu tio n f ro m each em ail sen t to a “co u rse o f

co n d u ct.” A p p ellan t’s arg u m en t still f ails, b ecau se each o f ap p ellan t’s ten em ail h arassm en t

co n v ictio n s co rresp o n d s to each d ay th at ap p ellan t sen t a series o f em ails to William s, th u s

co n stitu tin g a sep arate co u rse o f co n d u ct o n each su ch d ay . We sh all ex p lain

.

D o n a ti m ak es clear th at th e em ail h arassm en t statu te w as m o d eled af ter th e telep h o n e

m isu se statu te. Id

. at 7 2 6

. T h is C o u rt h as h eld th at th e telep h o n e m isu se statu te, d esp ite its

p ro h ib itio n o f “rep eated c a l l s , ” allo w s f o r m u ltip le co n v ictio n s b ased o n m u ltip le, b u t

d istin ct, series o f “rep eated calls.” S ee vo n L u sch v. S ta te , 3 9 M d

. A p p

. 5 1 7

, 5 2 5 -2 6

, cert.

d en ied

, 2 8 3 M d

. 7 4 0 (1 9 7 8 ). Writin g f o r th is C o u rt in vo n L u sch

, Ju d g e C h arles M o y lan

,

Jr. w ro te:

T h e a p p ella n t ta kes u m b ra g e a t h a v in g b een co n v icted

u p o n tw o co u n ts— ch a rg in g v io la tio n s o f th e sta tu te o n M a y 5

a n d M a y 1 1 resp ectiv ely

— ra th er th a n u p o n a sin g le co u n t. T h e

a p p ella n t p o in ts o u t, q u ite p ro p erly , th a t u n d er th e sta tu te, ea ch in d iv id u a l ca ll is n o t a d istin ct o f f en se. T h e sta tu te is a im ed

ra th er a t a p a ttern o f “ rep ea ted ca lls.” W h a t h e f a ils to p erceiv e is t h a t ev en p a ttern s (ea ch em b ra cin g a co m p lex o f in d iv id u a l

ca lls) m a y b e in th e p lu ra l. T h e ev id en ce h ere w a s l e g a lly

1 4su f f icien t to esta b lish o n e p a ttern o f rep etitiv e ca lls o n M a y 5 a n d

a g a in a d istin ct a n d sep a ra te p a ttern o f rep etitiv e ca lls o n M a y 1 1

.

T h e ap p ellan t m ad e a d istin ct f lu rry o f c a l l s o n M ay 5

. F o rty -th ree calls w ere p laced w ith in a sev en -h o u r p erio d

. T en o f th em actu ally reach ed M r. G ro llm an

. T h e ap p ellan t ad m itted th at h e d ialed M r. G ro llm an 4 3 tim es o n M ay 5

. H e w o u ld an n o u n ce to M r. G ro llm an th e tim e o f d ay an d w o u ld t h en “y ell” o u t, “F lig h t

o v erh ead .” T h e ap p ellan t ad m itted th at h e k n ew th at M r. G ro llm an h ad a h eart co n d itio n an d th at h e (th e ap p ellan t) “h ad h o p ed to w ear h im d o w n .”

A d istin ct ep iso d e o ccu rr e d o n M ay 1 1

, six d ay s later. T h e

c a l l s w ere m ad e o n w eek en d s. T h e ap p ellan t d id n o t b o th er to see M r. G ro llm an p erso n ally ev en th o u g h h e liv ed b u t a b lo ck an d a h alf

aw ay

. H e d id n o t call M r. G ro llm an at th e C o m m issio n er’s O f

f ice in th e C o u rt H o u se d u rin g th e w o rk in g w eek

. T h e M ay 5 calls w ere all

m ad e to M r. G ro llm an ’s resid en ce. T h e M ay 1 1 calls w ere m ad e to M r

. G ro llm an at th e sto re w h ich ad j o in ed h is h o m e. O n M ay 1 1

, f o u rteen cal l s w ere receiv ed b y M r. G ro llm an in o n e 2 5 -m in u te
p erio d

.

T h e ep iso d es w ere d istin ct a n d w e p erceiv e n o erro r.

Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ).

In th e case su b ju d ice
, ap p ellan t w as co n v icted o f ten co u n ts o f v io latin g th e e-m ail

h arassm en t statu te f

o r em ails h e sen t to William s o n ten d if f eren t d ay s: Ju n e 2 4

, Ju ly 6

, Ju ly

9

, J u l y 1 3

, Ju ly 1 4

, Ju ly 1 6

, Ju ly 1 7

, Ju ly 1 8

, Ju ly 1 9

, an d Ju ly 2 2

, 2 0 1 2

. U n lik e D o n a t i

,

ap p ellan t w as n o t co n v icted o f v io latin g th e statu te f o r each em ail th at h e sen t to William s.

S ee D o n a ti
, 2 1 5 M d

. A p p

. at 7 2 2 -2 3

. S im ilar to v o n L u sch ’s d istin ct ep iso d es o f “rep eated

calls” o n tw o d if

f eren t d ay s, each d ay th at ap p ellan t h arassed William s v ia a series o f em ails

co n stitu ted a d istin ct “p attern ” o r co u rse o f co n d u ct in v io latio n o f th e e-m ail h arassm en t

1 5statu te. S

ee C L § 3 -8 0 5 ; 3 9 M d

. A p p

. at 5 2 5 -2 6

. A s a re s u l t
, th e circu it co u rt p ro p erly

im p o sed sep arate sen ten ces f o r each o f ap p ellan t’s co n v ictio n s f o r e-m ail h arassm en t.

II. M erg er o f

C o n v ictio n s f

o r Vio la tin g a P ro tectiv e O rd er

A p p ellan t co n ten d s th at,“b ecau se th e j u ry in stru ctio n s an d v erd ict sh ee t created

am b ig u ity ” w ith resp ect to th e co n d u ct u p o n w h ich th e j u ry relied in co n v ictin g h im o f f if ty

co u n ts o f v io latin g a p ro tectiv e o rd er, ap p ellan t’s f if ty co n v ictio n s m

u st m erg e in to n o m o re

th an n in e f

o r sen ten cin g p u r p o ses, o n e f o r each d ay o n w h ich a v io latio n o f a p ro tectiv e

o rd er w as f

o u n d to h av e o ccu rred

. H e a s s erts th at, u n d er th e ru le o f len ity

, th e am b ig u ity

w ith resp ect to th e b asis f o r th e j u ry ’s v erd icts m

u st b e reso lv ed in h is f

a v o r , an d th u s a

rem an d o f h is case is req u ired

, w ith in stru ctio n s th at h e b e resen ten ced to n o m o re th an o n e

y ear o f im p riso n m en t p er d ay

o n w h ich a v io latio n o f

a p ro tectiv e o rd er w as co m m itted

.

A s an in itial m atter, th e S tate resp o n d s th at ap p ellan t f ailed to p reserv e th is issu e f o r

ap p ellate rev iew

, b ecau se, alth o u g h ap p ellan t “arg u ed th at th e v io latio n s sh o u ld b e lim ited

b y th e d ay s ch arg ed an d n o t th e n u m b er o f em ails, h e d id n o t assert as a b asis f o r h is claim

th at th e [ ] j u ry ’s v erd ict w as u n clear.” O n th e m erits, th e S tate arg u es th at u p o n

co n sid eratio n o f (1 ) th e v erd ict sh eet, (2 ) th e trial co u rt’s in stru ctio n s to th e j u ry , an d (3 ) th e

p ro secu to r’s clo sin g arg u m en t, th e j u ry ’s v erd icts w ere n o t am b ig u o u s, an d th u s ap p ellan t

“is n o t en titled to th e b en ef it o f an am b ig u ity .”

W e f irst co n clu d e th at ap p ellan t’s issu e is p reserv ed

, b ecau se, at th e sen ten ci n g

h earin g , d ef

en se co u n sel raised th e issu e o f th e m erg er o f th e v io latio n o f p ro tectiv e o rd ers

1 6f

o r each o f th e n in e d ay s f

o r w h ich th e j u ry co n v icted ap p ellan t. A lth o u g h d ef en se co u n sel

d id n o t u tter th e w o rd s “ru le o f len ity ,” h e c l e a r l y p r e serv ed th e issu e o f m erg er o f th e

co n v ictio n s f

o r v io latio n o f th e p ro tectiv e o rd er, an d th e trial co u rt clearly d ecid ed th e issu e

w h en it stated : “I d o n ’t b eliev e th at an y th in g tech n ically m erg es.

. . . E ach v io latio n o f th e

p ro tectiv e o rd er w as ex actly th at, a sep arate an d d istin ct em ail th at o ccu rred o v er th e co u rse

o f th o se eig h t [ sic] d ay s.” B ecau se th e issu e w as raised in an d d ecid ed b y th e trial co u rt, th e

issu e is p reserv ed f

o r o u r rev iew

. S

ee M d . R u le 8 -1 3 1 (a).

T h ere are th ree g ro u n d s o n w h ich an in d iv id u al’s co n v i c t i o n s m ay b e m erg ed f o r

sen ten cin g p u rp o ses: “ ( 1 ) t h e r eq u ired ev id en ce test; (2 ) th e ru le o f len ity ; an d (3 ) ‘th e

p rin cip le o f f

u n d am en tal f

airn ess.’” C

a rro ll v. S ta te , 4 2 8 M d

. 6 7 9

, 6 9 3 -9 4 (2 0 1 2 ) (q u o tin g

M o n o ker v. S ta te , 3 2 1 M d

. 2 1 4

, 2 2 2 -2 3 (1 9 9 0 )). A p p ellan t co n ced es th at th e req u ire d

ev id en ce test is n o t ap p licab le in th is case.

With r e s p e c t to th e p u rp o se an d ap p licab ility o f th e ru le o f len ity

, th e C o u rt o f

A p p eals h as ex p lain ed :

T w o crim es creat e d b y leg islativ e en actm en t m ay n o t b e p u n ish ed

sep arately if th e leg islatu re in ten d ed th e o f f en ses to b e p u n ish ed b y

o n e sen ten ce. It i s w h e n w e are u n certain w h eth er th e leg islatu re in ten d ed o n e o r m o re th an o n e sen te n c e t h a t w e m ak e u se o f an aid

to statu to ry in terp retatio n k n o w n a s t h e ru le o f len ity

. U n d er th at

ru le, if w e are u n su re o f th e leg islativ e in ten t in p u n ish in g o f f en ses as

a sin g le m erg ed crim e o r as d istin ct o f f en ses, w e, in ef

f ect, g iv e th e d ef en d an t th e b en ef

it o f th e d o u b t an d h o ld th at th e crim es d o m erg e.

C la rk v. S ta te , 1 8 8 M d

. A p p

. 1 8 5

, 2 0 7 -0 8 (2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tatio n ma r k s o m itted ) (q u o tin g

M o n o ker , 3 2 1 M d . at 2 2 2 ).

1 7T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals stated in N

ico la s v. S ta te , 4 2 6 M d . 3 8 5 , 4 0 8 n .6 (2 0 1 2 ):

A s M ary lan d case law in d i c a t e s, th e ap p ro p riate stan d ard to ap p ly

w h en ad d ressin g a q u es t i o n o f f actu al am b ig u ity in th e co n tex t o f

m erg in g co n v ictio n s is to reso lv e th e am b ig u ity in th e d ef

en d an t’s f av o r in a s i t u atio n w h ere it is im p o ssib le to k n o w f

o r certain th e ratio n ale o f th e trier o f f

act f o r f in d in g th e co n v ictio n s en tered ag ain st th e d ef en d an t.

S ee a lso S n o w d en v. S ta te , 3 2 1 M d

. 6 1 2

, 6 1 9 (1 9 9 1 ) ; S t a te v. F rye , 2 8 3 M d

. 7 0 9

, 7 2 3 -2 5

(1 9 7 8 ); C o rtez v. S ta te , 1 0 4 M d

. A p p

. 3 5 8

, 3 6 1 (1 9 9 5 ). B ecau se “[ t] h e b u rd en o f p ro v in g

d istin ct acts o r tran s a c t i o n s

. . . f alls o n th e S tate,” “w h en th e in d ictm en t o r j u ry ’s v erd ict

ref lects am b ig u ity as to w h eth er th e j u ry b ased its co n v ictio n s o n d istin ct acts, th e am b ig u ity

m u st b e r eso lv ed in f

av o r o f th e d ef

en d an t.” M

o rris v. S ta te , 1 9 2 M d

. A p p

. 1

, 3 9 (2 0 1 0 ).

C o u rts h av e lo o k ed to th e ch arg in g d o cu m en t, j u ry in stru ctio n s, v erd ict sh eet, an d ev id en ce

in tro d u ced at trial to d eterm in e w h eth er am b ig u ity ex isted

. S

ee id . at 3 9 -4 4

.

We ag ree w ith th e S tate th at th e reco rd in th e in stan t case is n o t am b ig u o u s. F irst, th e

trial co u rt ex p lain ed th e v erd ict sh eet to th e j u ry as f o llo w s:

A ll rig h t. M r. F o rem an , lad ies a n d g en tlem en , th is case i n v o lv es f

iv e d if f eren t ty p es o f crim e. H o w ev er, y o u w ill rece i v e a

v erd ict sh eet th at h as a to t a l o f 8 1 q u estio n s. T h e reaso n f o r th at is
th ere a re ch a rg es th a t certa in crim es w ere re p e a t ed m u ltip le tim es o v er th e co u rse o f certa in d a y s. S o , I th in k th e v erd ict sh eet is v ery lo g ica l. It sta rts w ith t h e o f f e n ses th a t co v er th e sp a n o f tim e b etw een J u n e 1 s t a n d J u ly 2 2 n d ; a n d th en it g o es in ch ro n o lo g ica l o rd er f

o r th e d a tes th e S ta te a lleg es th e Vio la tio n s

o f t h e P ro tectiv e O rd er , th e H arassm en t, an d H arassm en t b y E lectro n ic M ail.

(E m p h asis ad d ed ).

1 8In ad d itio n , th e co u rt in stru cted th e j u ry th at th e v erd ict sh eet in clu d ed sev eral co u n ts

ch arg in g th e sam e crim es b ecau se “certain crim es w ere rep eated m u ltip le tim es” an d th at th e

j u ry “m u st co n sid er each ch arg e sep arately an d retu rn a sep arate v erd ict as to each ch arg e.”

T h en , in h er clo sin g arg u m en t, th e p ro secu to r ex p lain ed :

N o w Ju ly 6 th

, w e’v e g o tten th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. Q u estio n s 2 2 th ro u g h 3 8 , th ey ’re all ch arg es o f v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. Y o u w ill see w h en y o u g o th ro u g h th ese em ail ch ain s— it is im p o rtan t

w h en y o u g o th ro u g h th ese ch ain s to lo o k at th e em ails. If y o u lo o k

at th e tim es th ey ’re sen t, th ey are i n t h e r e d u p licate tim es. S o m e

ema i l s y o u are g o in g to read

, y o u lo o k at tim es b ecau se so m etim es

w h en a rep ly is sen t, it attach es th at o ld er em ail w ith it. S o y o u w a n t
to g o th ro u g h a n d rea lly so rt o u t h o w m a n y em a ils th e d ef en d a n t

a ctu a lly sen t b eca u se h e o n ly g ets ch a rg ed o n e tim e p e r e ma i l. O k ay

.

M y

co u n t, I cam e u p w ith 2 3 em ails w ere sen t th at d ay w h en y o u g o th ro u g h th e co u n ts an d th e ty p es o f em ails. T h ere a re 2 3

ema i l s sen t o n Ju ly 6 th

. R em em b er I sa id b ef o re f o r ea ch em a il

y o u f in d , o n e em a ils eq u a ls o n e co u n t o f g u ilty f o r Vio la tio n o f a P ro tectiv e O rd er. S o , h e sen t 2 3

.

Y o u are g o in g to see h e h as 1 7 ch arg es o n th at d ay f o r

v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. S o , if y o u f in d

, y es, h e sen t all 2 3

, y o u

can ’t f in d h im g u ilty o f 2 3 co u n ts b ecau se w e ’ v e o n ly ch arg ed 1 7

. B u t, if y o u all ag ree th at h e sen t all 2 3 o f th o se ema ils o n Ju ly 6 th

, th en h e’s g u ilty o f all 1 7

. If y o u say , n o , w e o n ly th in k h e sen t 1 6 o f th ese em ails, th en h e’s g u ilty o f 1 6 co u n ts o f v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er an d n o t g u ilty

o f o n e co u n t o n Ju ly

6 th

.

* * *

O n Ju ly 9 th h e sen t f

iv e em ails th at d ay

. Q u estio n s 4 0 an d 4 1
g o to v io latin g a P ro tectiv e O rd er. H e h as a to tal o f tw o ch arg es f o r

v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er o n Ju ly 9 th o u t o f th e f iv e em ails, sam e lo g ic. If y o u f

in d h e sen t tw o o f th e f

iv e em ails, h e’s g u ilty

. If y o u f in d h e sen t all f

iv e o f th e em ails, h e’s g u ilty o f b o th co u n ts o f

1 9v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. If y o u f in d h e o n ly sen t o n e, th en h e’s

o n ly g u ilty o f o n e. I f h e [ s i c ] f in d h e sen t n o n e, n o em ails, th en h e

can ’t b e g u ilty

.

* * *

Ju ly 1 3 th

, q u estio n s 4 3 an d th en 4 5 to 5 1 g o to v i o l atin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er f

o r a to tal o f eig h t ch arg es. E ig h teen em ails sen t th at d ay f ro m R if f raf f sh aw n

. S am e lo g ic, if

y o u f in d h e sen t all 1 8

, th en clearl y h e ’ s g u ilty o f th e eig h t. T h e o n ly w ay h e w o u ld n o t b e g u i l t y o f a l l o f th o se co u n ts is if y o u f in d h e sen t less th an eig h t

em ails th at d ay

. . . .

Ju ly 1 4 th

, sam e th em e g o in g h e re. Q u estio n 5 2 ap p lies to V io latio n o f a P ro tectiv e O rd er. O n e ch arg e y o u f in d h e sen t at least

o n e em ail th at d ay , a n d I s h o w th at h e sen t tw o , h e’s g u ilty o f o n e

co u n t o f v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. S am e th in g o n Ju ly 1 6 th

, th e V io latio n o f P ro tectiv e O rd er ap p lies to C o u n t 5 4

. T h en 5 6 th ro u g h 6 3 o f y o u r v erd ict sh eet, sen t 2 3 em ails th at d ay , ch arg ed n in e tim es. If y o u th in k h e s e n t ev ery th in g , th en h e’s g u ilty o f all o f th e co u n ts b ecau se th ey ex ceed n in e. If y o u th in k h e sen t at least n in e, h e’s still
g u ilty o f all o f th e co u n ts. H e o n ly starts b eco m in g n o t g u ilty o f so m e

o f th o se co u n ts if y o u f

in d th at h e d id n o t s e n d n in e em ails o n th e 1 6 th

. . . .

Ju ly 1 7 th

, sam e th in g , six em ails, f o u r ch arg es. A s lo n g as y o u f in d h e sen t at least f

o u r em ails o r m o re , h e’s g u ilty o f all th e ch a r g e s

. . . . S am e th in g o n Ju ly 1 8 th

. F o r th is o n e, h e sen t f o u r

em ails. H e h as f

o u r ch arg es. S o , to f

in d h im g u ilty o f all th e co u n ts,
y o u h av e to f

in d th at h e sen t all f

o u r em ails th at d ay , sam e th in g f o r Ju ly 1 9 th

.

N o w , Ju ly 2 2 n d

, th is is th e d ay h e sen t th e em ail, I’m co m in g in th e red tru ck

. I’m o u tsid e. I’ll h o n k m y h o rn

. H e sen t o n e em ail.
H e ’s ch arg ed w ith o n e em ail. If y o u f in d h e sen t th at em ail, h e ’ s g u ilty o f th at co u n t o f v io latin g a P ro tectiv e O rd er. T h at’s q u estio n 8 0 o n y o u r v erd ict sh eet.

(E m p h asis ad d ed ).

2 0We co n clu d e th at th e j u ry ’s v erd icts w ere n o t am b ig u o u s, b ecau se th e v erd ict sh eet,

co u p led w ith th e trial co u rt’s in stru ctio n s reg ard in g th e v erd ict sh eet an d th e p ro secu t o r’s

clo sin g arg u m en t, m ad e clear th at each v io latio n o f th e p r o t e ctiv e o rd er co rresp o n d ed to

each em ail sen t b y ap p ellan t to William s. In its in stru ctio n s reg ard in g th e v erd ict sh eet, th e

co u rt stated t h a t “certain crim es w ere rep eated m u ltip le tim es o v er th e co u rse o f certain

d ay s.” T h e p ro secu to r su p p lem en ted th e co u rt’s in stru ctio n w h en sh e stated th at, “f o r each

em ail y o u f

in d

, o n e em ails eq u als o n e co u n t o f g u ilty f o r V io latio n o f a P ro tectiv e O rd er.”

T h e p ro secu to r th en ex p lain ed to th e j u r y t h a t
, i f o n a p articu lar d ay th e j u ry f o u n d th at

ap p ellan t sen t m o re em ail s t h a n th e n u m b er o f ch arg es f

o r v io latio n o f a p ro tectiv e o rd er,

a p p ellan t w o u ld b e g u ilty o f o n ly th e n u m b er o f ch arg es. C o n v ersely

, acco rd in g to th e

p ro secu to r, if th e j u ry f

o u n d th at ap p ellan t sen t f ew er em ails th an th o se ch arg ed

, ap p ellan t

w o u ld b e g u ilty o f o n ly th e n u m b er o f em ails sen t o n th at d ay an d n o t g u ilty o f th e rem ain d er

o f th e ch arg es f

o r th at d ay

. T h eref

o re, b ecau se th e j u ry ’s v erd icts w ere n o t am b ig u o u s, th e

co u rt d id n o t err in d eclin in g to m erg e ap p ellan t’s f if ty co n v ictio n s in to n in e f

o r sen ten cin g

p u rp o ses. S

ee M o rris , 1 9 2 M d . A p p . at 3 9

.

III. M erg er o f

R eckless E n d a n g erm en t C o n v ictio n s

A p p e l lan t arg u es th at h is tw o co n v ictio n s related to p o stin g in f o rm atio n o n

C raig slist.o rg , w ith William s as th e v ictim

, sh o u ld m erg e, b ecau se th e relev an t en tries o n th e

v erd ict sh eet, C o u n ts 1 1 an d 2 0

, w ere am b ig u o u s in th at th ey ask ed “Is th e d ef en d an t

. . . n o t

g u ilty o r g u i l t y o f th e [ r] eck less [ e] n d an g erm en t o f [ William s] b etw een Ju n e 1

, 2 0 1 2 an d

2 1Ju ly 2 2

, 2 0 1 2

, to w it: b y p o stin g in f o rm atio n ab o u t [ William s] o n C raig slist.co m ? ”

A p p ellan t co n ten d s th at, d u e to th e w o rd in g o f th e v erd ict sh eet, th ere is n o w ay o f k n o w in g

“w h ich co n d u ct th e j u ry relied u p o n f o r each co n v ictio n , w h eth er d if f eren t j u ro rs relied o n

d if f eren t C raig slist ad s, o r w h eth er th ey ev en co n sid ered d if f eren t ad s f

o r th e tw o

co n v ictio n s.” M o reo v er, ap p ellan t in sists th at th e co rresp o n d in g j u ry in stru ctio n o n reck less

en d an g erm en t d id n o t ad d an y clarity

. A cco rd in g ly

, ap p ellan t co n ten d s th at, w h ere th e n o ted

p o rtio n s o f th e v erd ict sh eet an d j u ry in stru ctio n s d id n o t in d icate th e d istin c t i o n b e tw een

th e co n d u ct to b e co n sid ered f o r th e tw o ch arg ed o f

f en ses o f reck less en d an g erm en t related

to p o stin g o n C raig slist w ith William s as th e v ictim

, th o se co n v ictio n s “m u st n o w m erg e.”

A g ain

, th e S tate resp o n d s th at th is arg u m en t is n o t p reserv ed

, b ecau se ap p ellan t “d id

n o t o b j ect w h en th e co u rt im

p o sed sep arate sen ten ces o n co u n ts elev en an d tw en ty an d h e

d id n o t arg u e th at th e sen ten ces sh o u ld m erg e b ased u p o n an am b ig u ity in th e reco rd .” A s

f o r th e m erits o f ap p ellan t’s claim

, th e S tate arg u es th at th e b asis f o r th e j u ry ’s v erd ict o n

th ese tw o co u n ts is clear, b ecau se, as w as tru e f o r th e co n v ictio n s f

o r th e v io latio n o f th e

p ro tectiv e o rd er, th e reco rd sh o w s th at “n o reaso n ab le j u r y d e l ib eratin g o n th e reck less

en d an g erm en t co u n ts ch arg in g [ ap p ellan t] w ith th e p o stin g o f th e C raig slist ad s co u ld h av e

f o u n d h im g u ilty o f b o th co u n ts e l e v e n a n d t w en ty o n th e b asis o f th e sam e p o stin g .”

(F o o tn o te o m itted ).

A s a p relim in ary m atter, w e co n clu d e th at ap p ellan t’s a r gum e nt i s pr e serv ed

, b ecau se,

at th e sen ten cin g h earin g , d ef en se co u n sel stated :

2 2S eco n d ly

, as to th e reck less en d an g erm en t ch arg es. We w o u ld
arg u e th at at least th e tw o C raig ’slist [ sic] p o stin g s w h ich w ere f iled in th is case, w h ich is six o f th e reck l e s s ch arg es, sh o u ld m erg e in to th ree as w ell.

T h e lan g u ag e o f th e in d ictm en t states f o r A n g ell f

ro m Ju n e 1 st
to Ju ly 2 2 n d

. I t d o e s n o t sp ecif ic [ sic]

— th e in d ictm en t d o es n o t
sp ecif y th at th ere w ere tw o sep arate in stan ces, it j u st d i s c u s s e s th e lan g u ag e say in g th is w as o n e co u rse o f a c t io n o v er th is tim ef ram e. It is b asically

d u p licito u s lan g u ag e f

o r b o th o f th e ch arg es. It is o u r arg u m en t th at th ey

sh o u ld m erg e in to th ree sep arate ch arg es.

B ecau se d ef

en se co u n sel raised th e arg u m en t th at th e tw o ch arg es o f reck less en d an g erm en t

b ased o n th e C raig slist ad sh o u ld m erg e, th e issu e is p reserv ed f o r o u r rev iew

. S

ee M d

. R u le

8 -1 3 1 (a).

T u rn in g to th e m erits, w e ag ree w ith th e S tate th at th e tw o co n v ictio n s f o r reck less

en d an g erm en t b ased o n th e C raig slist ad s w ere b ased o n tw o d istin ct acts an d th u s w ere n o t

am b ig u o u s. F irst, w e lo o k to th e ch arg in g d o cu m en t to d eterm in e w h eth er th er e w as an y

am b ig u ity reg a r d i n g t h e f

actu al b asis f

o r th e C raig slist ad ch arg es. See Morris

, 192 Md.

App. at 39 (“Accordingly

, when the indictment or jury ’s v e r d ict reflects ambiguity as to

whether the jury based its c o n v i c tions on distinct acts, the am biguity m ust be resolved in

f avor of the def

endant.”(emphasis added)); see also Gerald v. State

, 137 Md. App. 295, 312

(2001) (“ W

ith an ambiguity in the indictment

, and non-curative instructions, the f irst degree

assault conviction m

ust indeed m erge into the r obbery conviction.” (em phasis added));

W illiams v. State 1 8 7 M d. App. 470, 477 (2009) (“ [ Defendant’s] charging document is

ambiguo u s a s t o t h e particular act f or which he was charged with f irst degree assault of

2 3[ victim ]. Moreover, the cour t d i d n o t i nstruct the jury as to “how the assault and robbery

charges related to one another, how they dif f ered, and what the jury needed to f ind to convict

under both charges.” (quoting Gerald , 137 Md. App. at 312)).

T h e lan g u ag e in th e ch arg in g d o cu m en t m ak es clear th at ap p ellan t w as ch arg ed w ith

tw o co u n ts o f reck less en d an g erm en t b as e d o n co n d u ct related to tw o d if f eren t C raig slist

ad s:

C O U N T 1 1

T H E G R A N D JU R O R S O F T H E S T A T E O F M A R Y L A N D F O R T H E B O DY OF PRI NCE GEORGE’ S COUN T Y O N T H E IR O A T H D O P R E S E N T T H A T M IC H A E L A N T H O N Y J O H N S O N , II O N O R A B O U T T H E 1 st D A Y O F JU N E

, 2 0 1 2

, T H R O U G H T H E 2 2 N D D A Y O F JU L Y

, 2 0 1 2

, IN P R IN C E G E O R G E ’S C O U N T Y

, M A R Y L A N D

, D ID R E C K L E S S L Y E N G A G E IN C O N D U C T

, T O WI T : P O S T IN G M A T E R IA L O F A N G E L L WIL L IA M S O N C R A IG S L I S T

. C O M IN V IT IN G M E N T O C O M E O V E R T O H E R R E S ID E N C E T O E N G A G E IN S E X A N D /O R S E X U A L A C T S WIT H A N G E L L WIL L IA M S A N D /O R H E R D A U G H T E R S T H A T C R E A T E D A S U B S T A N T IA L R IS K O F D E A T H O R S E R IO U S P H Y S IC A L IN JU R Y T O A N G E L L WIL L IA M S

., IN V IO L A T IO N O F C R -0 3 -2 0 4 (a)(1 ) O F T H E C R IM IN A L L A W A R T IC L E A G A IN S T T H E P E A C E

, G O V E R N M E N T A N D D IG N IT Y O F T H E S T A T E

. (R E C K L E S S E N D A N G E R M E N T )

* * *

C O U N T 2 0

T H E G R A N D JU R O R S O F T H E S T A T E O F M A R Y L A N D F O R THE BO D Y O F P R IN C E G E O R G E ’S COUNTY ON THEI R OATH
D O P R E S E N T T H A T M IC H A E L A N T H O N Y J O H N S O N , II O N O R A B O U T T H E 1 st D A Y O F JU N E

, 2 0 1 2

, T H R O U G H T H E 2 2 N D D A Y O F JU L Y

, 2 0 1 2

, IN P R IN C E G E O R G E ’S C O U N T Y

, M A R Y L A N D

, D ID R E C K L E S S L Y E N G A G E IN C O N D U C T

, T O

2 4WIT : P O S T IN G M A T E R IA L O F A N G E L L WIL L IA M S O N C R A IG S L IS T .C O M IN V IT IN G M E N T O C O M E O V E R T O H E R R E S ID E N C E A N D R A P E A N G E L L WIL L IA M

S A N D H E R D A U G H T E R S T H A T C R E A T E D A S U B S T A N T IA L R IS K O F D E A T H O R S E R IO U S P H Y S IC A L I N J U R Y T O A N G E L L WIL L IA M S

, IN V IO L A T IO N O F C R -0 3 -2 0 4 (a)(1 ) O F T H E C R I M I N A L L A W A R T I C L E A G A I N S T T H E P E A C E

, G O V E R N M E N T A N D D IG N IT Y O F T H E S T A T E

. (R E C K L E S S
E N D A N G E R M E N T )

(B o ld em p h asis in o rig in al) (italics an d u n d erlin e ad d ed ).

S eco n d

, as stated p rev io u sly

, th e trial co u rt’s in stru ctio n s reg ard in g th e v erd ict sh eet

in d icated th at th e reck less en d an g erm en t ch arg es co rresp o n d ed to d istin c t acts o r co n d u ct

en g ag ed in b y ap p ellan t. In its in stru ctio n s reg ard in g th e v erd ict sh eet, th e co u rt stated th at

“certain crim es w ere rep eated m u ltip le tim es o v er th e co u rse o f certain d ay s.”

T h ird , th e p ro secu to r stated th e f o llo w in g in h er clo sin g arg u m en t:

O n J u n e 2 0 th

, f

irst th e v ictim f

in d s o u t th at h er M S N acco u n t i s

c h a n g e d t o

— t h e b a c k u p e m a i l i s c h a n g e d t o t h e

m ik ej o h n so n 5 1 6 @y ah o o .co m

. Wh en y o u tak e a lo o k at th at, y o u ’ll

see in th e ev id en ce th ere’s actu ally a ch art th at co n f irm s th at af

ter sh e f ix ed it; an d it sh o w s th at th ey w ere rem o v in g th e M ik ej o h n so n 5 1 6

. We k n o w th at’s th e d ef

en d an t’s em ail acco u n t. H e to ld u s th at. T h en

a m an sh o w s u p

. T h is is th e d a y th ey sta rt sh o w in g u p
. A m a n sh o w s u p a t h er h o u se. H e sa y s th a t h e h a s f o u n d a C ra ig slist a d

. T h a t o n e y o u w o n ’t see. T h i s i s j u st f ro m th e testim o n y o f M s. W illia m s. S h e testif

ied th a t sh e sa w th e a d

. H e sh o w ed h er o n h is
p h o n e. It w a s b a sica lly so m e v u lg a r la n g u a g e a b o u t sex a cts th a t

su p p o sed ly h a d b e e n h e r o f f erin g to p erf

o rm to th ese m en sh e d i d n ’ t k n o w
. S h e sa id th e p ictu res w ere d ef in itely h er, b u t sh e d id n o t p u t th e p o stin g u p
. T h e v i c t im calls 9 1 1 b ecau se th is is
g o in g o n

.

* * *

2 5T h e 2 2 n d

, m en are sh o w in g u p at h er h o u se. A t th is p o in t, sh e said it w as j u st co n tin u an ce [ sic]

. M e n a r e co n tin u o u sly co m in g to h er h o u se. O n e o f th e m en co m es u p a g a in , sa y s t h e r e ’ s a C ra ig slist p o stin g
. T h is p o stin g y o u w i ll see. It’s in ev id en ce. [2]
O n th is it’s b a sica lly sa y in g th is is rea l, ra p e m e. It is a ra p e f a n ta sy
. T a ke a lo o k a t th a t ev id en ce. It g o es th ro u g h

. I t a sks
p eo p le w h o resp o n d ed to ju st kick in th e d o o r, d o n ’t ta lk to h er, ju st co m e in a n d ra p e h er. M en a re resp o n d in g to th is. T h ey ’re sh o w in g u p a t h er h o m e, h er h o m e w h ere sh e’s a t w ith h er f o u r ch ild ren
.
(E m p h asis ad d ed ).

T h e p ro secu to r’s clo sin g arg u m en t th u s track ed th e lan g u ag e in th e in d ictm en t an d

m ad e it clear to th e j u ry th at William s w as b ein g ch arg ed w ith reck less en d an g erm en t b ased

o n t w o d i f

f eren t C raig slist ad s: th e f irst o n e, w h ich w as sh o w n to William s o n Ju n e 2 0

,

2 0 1 2

, b u t w as n o t in ev id en ce, an d th e seco n d o n e, w h ich w as sh o w n to William s o n Ju n e

2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, an d w as in ev id en ce. M o reo v er, th e p ro secu to r’s rem ark s w ere b as e d o n

William s’s o w n testim o n y : sh e testif ied th at sh e w as sh o w n th e f irst ad o n Ju n e 2 0

, 2 0 1 2

,

w h ich said “co m e o v er an d h av e sex w ith m e.” T h is C raig slist ad co rresp o n d s w ith C o u n t

1 1

, w h ere ap p ellan t w as ch arg ed w ith reck lessly en g ag in g in co n d u ct b y “p o stin g m aterial

an d in f o rm atio n o f [ ] William s o n C raig slist.co m in vitin g m en to co m e o ver to h er resid en ce

to en g a g e in sex a n d

/o r sexu a l a cts .” (E m

p h asis ad d ed ). L ater o n , William s testif ied th at

sh e w as sh o w n a C raig slist ad o n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 2 ; sh e r e ad f ro m th e ad

, w h ich d escrib ed a

rap e f an tasy : “th is is real rap e m e.” T h is ad

, w h ich w as in ev id en ce, co rresp o n d s w ith C o u n t

William s testif

ied th at sh e w as sh o w n th is ad o n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, n o t Ju n e 2 2

, 2 0 1 2

. 2

2 62 0

, w h ere ap p ellan t w as ch arg ed w ith reck lessly en g ag in g in co n d u ct b y “p o stin g m aterial

an d in f o rm atio n o f [ ] William s o n C raig slist.co m in vitin g m en to co m e o ver to h er resid en ce

a n d ra p e [ ] Willia m s a n d h er d a u g h ters. ” In su m , (1 ) th e ch arg in g d o cu m en t clearly

d elin eated tw o sep arate co u n ts asso ciated w ith co n d u ct related to tw o d istin ct C raig slist ad s;

(2 ) th e j u ry in stru ctio n s em p h asized th at each ch arg e co rresp o n d ed to a d istin ct act; (3 ) th ere

w as an e v i d en tiary b asis f o r th e j u ry to co n v ict ap p ellan t o f reck less en d an g erm en t o f

William s b ased o n tw o d istin ct C raig slist ad s; an d (4 ) su ch b asis w as ex p lain ed to th e j u ry

b y th e p ro secu to r. A s a resu lt, th e tw o co n v ictio n s related to p o stin g in f o rm atio n o n

C raig slist.o rg , w ith William s as th e v ictim

, w ere n o t am b ig u o u s. A cco rd in g ly th e circu it

co u rt d id n o t err in d eclin in g to m erg e th o se tw o co n v ictio n s f o r sen ten cin g p u rp o ses. S ee

M o rris , 1 9 2 M d . A p p . at 3 9

.

IV. A p p ella n t’s P rio r C o n v ictio n s

( A ) R eb u tta l T

estim o n y

A p p ellan t co n ten d s th at th e co u rt erred b y allo w in g William s to testif y ab o u t h is p rio r

c o n v ictio n s f

o r assau lt an d v io latio n o f a p ro tectiv e o rd er in th e S tate’s reb u ttal c a s e

.

A p p ellan t asserts th at William s’s testim o n y w as n o t p r o p er reb u ttal ev id en ce, b ecau se

ap p ellan t d id n o t testif

y w ith resp ect to “th e ev en ts th at resu lted in th e f irst p ro tectiv e o rd er

an d h is g o in g to p riso n u n til Jan u ary 2 0 1 2 ” d u rin g t h e d e f e n se’s case-in -ch ief

. F u rth er,

ap p ellan t in sists th at h is testim o n y d id n o t in clu d e a d iscu ssio n o r d en ial o f th e assau lt in

q u estio n

. C o n seq u en tly

, ap p ellan t claim s th at “William s[ ’] testim o n y w as n o t co mp e t e n t

2 7reb u ttal ev id en ce w h ich ex p lain ed

, o r d irectly rep lied to
, o r co n tra di c t e d, an y n ew m atter th at

h ad b een b ro u g h t in to th e case b y ap p ellan t’s testim o n y ,” an d th u s its ad m issio n w as erro r

w arran tin g rev ersal o f

ap p ellan t’s co n v ictio n s.

T h e S tate resp o n d s th at ap p ellan t d id n o t p reserv e th is issu e, b ecau se d ef en se co u n sel

f ailed to o b

j ect w h en William s testif ied ab o u t ap p ellan t’s p rio r co n v ictio n s, an d th at th ere

w as n o “tem

p o ral p ro x im ity ” b etw een t h e trial co u rt’s ru lin g o n th e m o tio n in lim in e an d

William s’s testim o n y

. S ee D yce v. S ta te , 8 5 M d

. A p p

. 1 9 3

, 1 9 8 (1 9 9 0 ) (ap p ellate co u rt

ex ercised d iscretio n to co n sid er an iss u e r a i s e d d u rin g th e cro ss-ex am in atio n o f a w itn ess

f o llo w in g th e m o tio n in l i mi n e , e v en th o u g h trial co u n sel d id n o t o b j ect d u rin g th e cro ssex am in atio n , b ecau se “th e f irst q u estio n p o sed o n cro ss-ex am in atio n [ ] w as sep arated o n ly

b y [ th e w itn ess’s] d irect ex am in atio n ,” w h i ch w as “relativ ely b rief (it is reco rd ed o n 1 4

p ag es o f th e trial tran scrip t)” )

. A s t o t h e m erits, th e S tate arg u es th at th e co u rt p ro p erly

ex ercised its d iscretio n w h en it ru led th at su ch testim o n y w as p ro p er reb u ttal testim o n y

.

A s an in itial m atter, w e co n clu d e th at ap p ellan t’s arg u m en t is p reserv ed

. A lth o u g h

th e S tate is co rrect th at d ef en se co u n sel f

ailed to o b

j ect w h en William s testif ied

, o n ly o n e

w itn ess, D etectiv e Jef

f erso n D av is, testif

ied in b etw een w h en th e trial co u rt ru led in f av o r

o f th e S tate’s m o tio n in lim in e an d w h en th e S tate called William s to testif y in reb u ttal. T h e

S tate ask ed o n ly f

iv e q u estio n s o f D et. D av is, an d de fe ns e co u n sel d eclin ed to cro ss-ex am in e

h im

. In o u r v iew

, th e i n t e r l u d e o f D et. D av is’s testim o n y , w h ich tak es u p less th an tw o

p ag es o f th e trial tran scrip t, w as “r e l a t i v e l y b rief ,” an d th u s w e ex ercise o u r d iscretio n to

2 8co n sid er ap p ellan t’s ch allen g e to William s’s testim o n y d u rin g th e S tate’s reb u ttal case. S ee

id

.

“Rebuttal evidence is ‘any com petent evidence which explains, or is a direct reply to,

o r a contradiction of any new m atter that has been brought into the case by the def ense.’”

Rollins v. State

, 161 Md. App. 34, 89 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ting Collins v. State

, 373 Md. 130, 142

(2003)). R u lin g o n th e ad m issib ility o f reb u ttal ev id en ce i s a ma t t e r w ith in th e so u n d

d iscretio n o f th e trial co u rt, “an d w ill b e rev ersed o n l y if it is m an if estly w ro n g an d

su b stan tially in

j u rio u s.” R o llin s , 1 6 1 M d

. A p p

. at 8 9 (citatio n s an d in tern al q u o tatio n m ark s

o m itted ).

In th e in stan t case, ap p ellan t testif ied d u rin g th e d ef

en se’s case-in -ch ief th at h e h ad

co n tact w ith William s “sev eral tim es” b etw een w h en h e w as released f ro m j ail in Jan u ary

2 0 1 2 an d Ju n e 2 0 1 2

. S p ecif ically

, ap p ellan t testif

ied th at William s em ailed h im in F eb ru ary

2 0 1 2 ; th at William s em ailed h im h er n ew p h o n e n u m b er an d th ey talk ed o n th e p h o n e in

M ay 2 0 1 2 ; an d th at ap p ellan t called William s th e w eek af ter F ath er’s D ay in Ju n e 2 0 1 2 to

m eet at a p ark so t h at ap p ellan t co u ld see th eir so n

. A cco rd in g to ap p ellan t, h e called

William s th ree t i mes d u rin g th is f iv e-m o n th tim e p erio d

, an d William s called h im tw ice.

A p p ellan t f

u rth er testif

ied th at William s in itially co n tacted ap p ell a nt
, a nd t ha t t he y “ ba s i c a lly

h ad co m m o n b an ter b ack an d f o rth . It w asn ’t an y

ty p e o f ill f eelin g s in v o lv ed all th e w ay

u p u n til rig h t aro u n d Ju n e

. . . . T h at’s w h en ev ery th in g w en t d o w n h ill. B u t, b ef o re th at

ev ery th in g w as f

in e.”

2 9G iv en ap p ellan t’s testim o n y th at Willia ms an d ap p ellan t w ere in co n tact b etw een

Jan u ary an d Ju n e 2 0 1 2

, th at William s o f ten in itiated su ch co n tact, an d th at th ere w ere n o “ill

f eelin g s in v o lv ed ” d u rin g th e m aj o rity o f th is tim e, th e trial co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d iscretio n

in allo w in g th e S tate to ch allen g e th e cred ib ility o f ap p ellan t’s test i mo n y b y allo w in g

testim o n y o n ap p ellan t’s co n v ictio n s f o r assau lt an d v io latio n o f a p ro tectiv e o rd er an d th e

d etails b eh in d su ch co n v ictio n s. A s th e co u rt ex p lain ed d u rin g its ev id en tiary ru lin g :

[ I] t’s n o t j u st th at it’s a p rio r co n v ictio n , it’s th at i t ’s a p rio r

co n v ictio n in w h ich h e w as co n v icted o f assau ltin g h er. T h at, to m e, is v ery sig n if ican t. H e d id testif

y th at th is w as a b an ter b etw een th e tw o o f th em

. T h e f

a ct th a t th ere w a s a p rio r a ssa u lt I t h i n k is

v ery relev a n t to ju d g e th e cred ib ility b etw een th e tw o o f th em
. T h a t’s w h a t it co m es d o w n to a s to w h eth er o r n o t sh e w a s g en era lly a f

ra id o r n o t, so I a m g o in g to p erm it it.

* * *
I th in k o n e o f th e issu es in th is case th e j u ry w ill h av e to d ecid e is is
th e em a il co rresp o n d en ce b etw een th e tw o o f th em co n sen su a l o r i s [ W i l lia m s] cred ib le w h en sh e sa y s th is w a s th e resu lt o f f e a r

a n d a d ecisio n sh e m a d e to try a n d b e a b le to p ro v e f ro m w h o m th ese em a ils w ere co m in g
. I th in k th at’s a f air v ery b rief su m m atio n

o f h er testim o n y an d testim o n y th at o n a p rio r o ccasio n w ith in a v ery sh o rt p er i o d o f tim e o f th is o ccu rrin g th ere w as a P ro tectiv e O rd er. H e v i o l ated th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. H e g o t arrested f o r v io latin g th e P ro tectiv e O rd er. T h en h e cam e b ack an d v io lated it ag ain

. I th in k i t g o e s a l o n g w ay o f ex p lain in g to th e j u ry w h y it’s cred ib le th at th ese co n v ersatio n s o n lin e w ere th e resu lt o f w h at sh e said

.

I a m g o in g to p erm it it. If y o u w an t m e to g iv e a limi t i n g in stru ctio n say in g th at it can b e co n sid ered

. Wh atev er y o u w an t m e t o say I w ill, b u t I th in k it is im p o rtan t th at th e j u ry h av e th a t in f o rm atio n to d eterm in e th e cred ib ility o f each w itn ess. I am g o in g to p erm it th em

to g et in to th e f

acts o f th o se ev en ts.

(E m p h asis ad d ed ).

3 0We ag ree w ith th e trial co u rt th at ap p ellan t’s tw o p rio r co n v ictio n s w ere relev an t to

assessin g th e cred ib ility o f ap p ellan t’s testi mo n y reg ard in g th e n atu re an d ex ten t o f h is

co n tact w ith William s f ro m Jan u ary th ro u g h Ju n e 2 0 1 2

, as w ell as th e cre d i b ility o f

William s’s testim o n y th at sh e th o u g h t ap p ellan t w as th e au th o r o f th e h arassin g em ails an d

th at sh e w as af

raid o f ap p ellan t. T h u s, ev id en ce relatin g to th ese co n v ictio n s e x p l ain ed

,

d irectly rep lied to
, an d co n trad icted “n ew m atter

. . . b ro u g h t in to th e case b y th e d ef en se.”

R o llin s , 1 6 1 M d

. A p p

. at 8 9 (q u o tin g C o llin s , 3 7 3 M d

. at 1 4 2 ). A cco rd in g ly

, th e trial co u rt

d id n o t ab u se its d iscretio n b y ad m ittin g th e reb u ttal ev id en ce in q u estio n

.
( B ) P rio r B a d

A cts

N ev erth eless, ap p ellan t co n ten d s th at, ev en if h is testim o n y “p erm itted so m e reb u ttal

ev id en ce f

ro m William s,” it d id n o t p erm it a d etailed reco u n tin g o f th e n o ted assau lt, w h ich

“co n stitu ted in ad m issib le o th er crim es/b ad -acts ev id e n c e w h o se u n f air p rej u d ice f

ar

ex ceed ed an y p ro b ativ e v alu e.” A p p ellan t asserts t ha t W i l l i a m s’s testim o n y w as n o t relev an t

to o n e o f th e ex cep t i o n s p ro v id ed f o r in M ary lan d R u le 5 -4 0 4 an d

, f u rth er, w as n o t m o re

p ro b ativ e th an p rej u d icial. A cco rd in g ly

, ap p ellan t co n clu d es asserts th a t a d m issio n o f

William s’s testim o n y

w as rev ersib le erro r.

T h e S tate resp o n d s th at ap p ellan t f ailed to p reserv e h is “p rio r b ad acts” arg u m en t f o r

ap p ellate rev iew

. We ag ree w ith th e S tate. D u rin g th e m o tio n in lim in e r e g a r d i n g th e

ev id en ce o f ap p ellan t’s co n v ictio n s f o r assau lt an d v io latio n o f th e p ro tectiv e o rd er, d ef en se

co u n sel raised th e issu e o f w h eth er su ch testim o n y co n stitu ted p ro p er reb u ttal ev id en ce; h e

3 1n ev er asserted th at su ch ev id en ce co n stitu ted im p ro p er ch a r a cter ev id en ce in v io latio n o f

M ary lan d R

u le 5 -4 0 4 . A cco rd in g ly , w e w ill n o t ad d ress ap p ellan t’s arg u m en t.

V. E m a il E v id en ce

( A ) A u th en tica tio n o

f E m a ils

A p p e l l a n t c o n ten d s th at th e trial co u rt erred b y ad m ittin g p rin to u ts o f em ails th at

William s claim ed w ere sen t to h er b y ap p ellan t, b ecau se th e em ails w ere n o t au th en ticated

.

A p p ellan t in sists th at w ith o u t

eith er an ad m issio n f

ro m [ h im ] as to t h e c o n t e n t o f th e em ail

m essag es, ev id en ce f

ro m eith er William s’s o r [ h is] em ail acco u n ts o r

co m p u ters, o r ev id en ce f

ro m o n e o f th e em ail p ro v id ers, th e p rin to u ts

o f th e em ail m essag es co u ld n o t b e p ro p erly au th en ticated w h en su ch

ev id en ce co u ld easily b e d o cto red o r f ab ricated to ap p e a r t o b e

so m eth in g it is n o t.

T h e S tate resp o n d s th at William s p resen ted s u f f i cien t d irect an d circu m stan tial

ev id en ce to au th en ticate th e em ails. We ag ree w ith th e S tate.

In Dickens v. State

, this Court explained that “the burden of proof f or authentication

is slight, and the court need not f ind that the evidence is necessarily what the p roponent

claim s, but only

that there is suf

f icient evidence that the jury ultim ately m ight do so.” 175

Md. App. 231, 239 (2007) (em phasis in original) (cita t i o n s a n d internal quotation m arks

om itted); see also Griffin v. State

, 419 Md. 343, 366-67 (2011) (citing to Dickens f or the

proposition that “the burden of proof f or authentication is slight”).

We recen tly ad d ressed th e issu e o f au th en t i c a t i n g em ails in D o n a ti

. S ee 2 1 5 M d

.

A p p . at 7 0 9 -1 1 . In D o n a ti , w e ex p lain ed :

3 2M ary lan d R u le 5 -9 0 1 ad d resses th e req u irem en ts to

au th en t i c ate ev id en ce, in clu d in g electro n ically sto red ev id en ce. It
p ro v id es as f

o llo w s: “T h e req u irem en t o f au th en ticatio n o r id en tif icatio n as a co n d itio n p reced en t to ad m issib ility is satisf ied b y

ev id en ce su f

f icien t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g th at th e m atter in q u estio n is

w h at its p ro p o n en t claim s.” M d . R u le 5 -9 0 1 (a).

* * *

In L o rra in e [ v. M

a rkel A m

. In s. C o

. , 2 4 1 F .R .D

. 5 3 4 (D

. M d

. 2 0 0 7 )]

, Ju d g e P au l W. G rim m d iscu ssed th e “ m a n y w a y s” in w h ich e-m a il

ev id en ce m a y b e a u th en tica ted :

“ [E ]-m a il m essa g es m a y b e a u th en tica ted b y d irect o r c i r c u m sta n tia l ev id en ce. A n e-m a il

m essa g e ’s d istin ctiv e ch a ra cteristics, in clu d in g its ‘co n ten ts, su b sta n ce, in tern a l p a ttern s, o r o th er di s t i nc t i ve c har ac t e r i s t i c s , t aken in co n ju n ctio n w it h

c i r c u m s t a n c e s [ , ] ’ m a y b e s u f f i c i e n t f o r

a u th en tica tio n
.

P rin to u ts o f e-m a il m essa g es o rd in a rily b ea r t h e s e n d e r ’ s e
- m a i l a d d r e s s , p r o v i d i n g circu m sta n tia l ev i d en ce th a t th e m essa g e w a s tra n sm itted b y th e p erso n id en tif ied in th e e-m a il

a d d ress. In resp o n d in g to an e-m ail m essag e, t h e p erso n rece i v i n g th e m essag e m ay tran sm it th e rep ly

u s i n g t h e c o m p u t e r ’ s r e p l y f u n c t i o n , w h i c h

au to ma t ically ro u tes th e m essag e to th e ad d ress f ro m

w h i c h t h e o rig in al m essag e cam e. U se o f th e rep ly f u n ctio n in d icates th at th e rep ly m essag e w as s e n t to th e sen d er’s listed e-m ail ad d ress.

T h e co n ten ts o f th e e-m a il m a y h elp s h o w

a u th en tica tio n b y rev ea l i n g d eta ils kn o w n o n ly to th e sen d er a n d th e p erso n receiv in g th e m essa g e.

E -m ails m ay ev en b e self

-au th en ticatin g

. U n d er R u le 9 0 2 (7 ), lab els o r tag s af f ix ed i n t h e co u rse o f b u sin ess req u ire n o au th en ticatio n

. B u sin ess e-m ails

3 3o f ten co n tain in f

o rm atio n sh o w in g th e o rig i n o f th e tran sm issio n an d id en tif

y in g th e em

p lo y er-co m

p an y

. T h e i d en tif

icatio n m ark er alo n e m ay b e su f f icien t t o

au th en ticate an e-ma i l u n d er R u le 9 0 2 (7 ). H o w ev er, th e sen d in g a d d ress in an e-m ail m essag e is n o t

co n clu siv e, sin ce e-m ail m essag es can b e sen t b y p erso n s o th er th an th e n am ed sen d er. F o r e x a mp l e , a p erso n w ith u n au th o rized access to a co m p u ter can tran sm it e-m ail m essag es u n d er th e co m p u ter o w n er’s

n am e. B ecau se o f th e p o ten tial f o r u n au th o rized

tran sm issio n o f e-m ail m essa g es, a u th en tica tio n req u ires testim o n y f

ro m a p erso n w ith p erso n a l kn o w led g e o f

th e tra n sm issio n o r receip t to en su re its tru stw o rth in ess. ”

Id

. at 5 5 4 (q u o tin g Jack B

. Wein stein & M arg aret A

. B erg er, W e i ns t e i n’ s Fe de r a l Evi de nc e § 9 0 0 .0 7 [ 3 ] [ c] (Jo sep h M

. M cL au g h lin ed ., M atth ew B en d er 2 d ed . 1 9 9 7 )).

Ju d g e G rim m

f u rth er n o ted :

C o u rts

. . . h a v e a p p ro v e d t h e a u th en tica tio n o f

e-m a il b y th e a b o v e d escrib ed m eth o d s. S ee, e.g

. , [ U n ited S ta tes v .] S id

d iq u i , 2 3 5 F .3 d [ 1 3 1 8 ,] 1 3 2 2 -2 3 [ (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 )] (E -m ail m ay b e au th e n t icated

en tirely b y circu m stan tial ev id en ce, in c l u d in g its d istin ctiv e ch aracteristics); [ U n ited S ta tes v. ] S

a fa via n , 4 3 5 F

. S u p p

. 2 d [ 3 6 ,] 4 0 [ (D .D .C .2 0 0 6 )] (reco g n izin g th at e-m ail m ay b e au th en ticated b y d istin ctiv e ch ara c t e ristics 9 0 1 (b )(4 ), o r b y co m p ariso n o f

ex em p lars w it h o th er e-m ails th at alread y h av e b een

au th en t i c a ted 9 0 1 (b )(3 )) ; R a m b u s [ In c. v. In fin eo n T ech n o lo g ies A G ]

, 3 4 8 F

. S u p p

. 2 d 6 9 8 [ (E .D .V a. 2 0 0 4 )] (E -m ail th at q u alif ies as b u sin ess reco rd m ay b e self -au th en tica tin g u n d er 9 0 2 (1 1 )); In re F .P

. , 8 7 8 A .2 d [ 9 1 ,] 9 4 [ (P a. S u p

. C t. 2 0 0 5 )] (E -m ail m ay b e

au th en ticated b y

d irect o r circu m stan tial ev id en ce).

Id . at 5 5 4 -5 5

.

3 4D o n a ti , 2 1 5 M d . A p p . at 7 0 9 -1 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

In th e case su b ju d i c e , t h e S tate p resen ted su f f icien t circu m stan tial ev id en ce to

au th en ticate th e e ma i l p r i n t o u t s

. F i r s t
, a p p e l l a n t t e s t if ied th at b o th th e

m ich aelj o h n so n 5 1 6 @y ah o o .co m an d th e rif raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail ad d resses

b elo n g ed to h im

. A p p ellan t’s ad m issio n s t h u s “p ro v id [ e] circu m stan tial ev id en ce th at th e

m essag e w as tran sm itted b y th e p erso n id en tif ied in th e e-m ail ad d ress.” D o n a ti
, 2 1 5 M d

.

A p p . at 7 1 0 (q u o tin g L o rra in e , 2 4 1 F .R .D . at 5 5 4 ).

S eco n d

, William s testif

ied th at v ario u s d etails in th e em ails w ere k n o w n b y ap p ellan t,

su ch as (1 ) ref

errin g to William s as “B ig H ead ,” a n ick n ame t h a t o n ly ap p ellan t u sed ; (2 )

ref errin g to William s’s sex u al ab u se w h en sh e w as a ch ild ; (3 ) ref errin g to ap p ellan t’s an d

William s’s so n b y n am e; (4 ) say in g th at h e “sw o re to b ean s,” w h ich w as a co m m o n p h rase

u sed b y ap p ellan t “ w h e n h e ’ s sw earin g o n h is g ran d m o th er’s g rav e”; (5 ) say in g th at

William s w as “th e m o th er o f h is ch ild ”; (6 ) ref errin g to th e i r r o ma n tic h isto ry an d

su b seq u en t m arital p ro b lem s, in clu d in g th e w o m an w ith w h o m ap p ellan t h ad an af f air; (7 )

sig n in g an em ail “Y o u r M ik e”; an d (8 ) ref errin g to William s’s m o th er’s h isto ry o f b reast

can cer. A ll o f th ese d etails, co n sid ered to g eth er, “‘h elp [ ed ] sh o w a ut he nt i c a t i on b y rev ealin g

d etails k n o w n o n ly to th e sen d er an d th e p erso n receiv in g th e m essag e.’” Id

. ; see a lso id

. at

7 1 3 (“O th er circu m stan ces h av e in clu d ed an e-m ail ref eren ce to th e au th o r w ith t h e

d ef en d an t’s n ick n am e, w h ere th e c o n t e x t o f th e e-m ail rev ealed d etails th at o n ly th e

d ef en d an t w o u ld k n o w , an d w h ere th e d ef en d an t called so o n af

ter th e receip t o f th e e-m ail,

3 5m ak in g th e sam e req u ests th at w ere m ad e in th e e-m ail.”).

T h ird

, f o ren sic ev id en ce p ro v id ed circu m stan tial ev id en ce th at ap p ellan t sen t th e

e-m ails at issu e. D etectiv e M ich ael B rack ett testif ied t h a t 4 ,1 1 3 in stan ces o f th e w o rd

“R if f raf f sh aw n ” w ere f

o u n d o n o n e o f th e co m

p u ters seized at ap p ellan t’s m o th er’s h o m e,

as w ell as “in stan ces o f w eb site h isto ry f o r B lack P lan et.co m ,” in clu d in g a w eb p ag e title f o r

“A n g ellw et-w et - B lack P lan et.co m .” In ad d itio n , ap p ellan t’s m o th er’s h o me w a s th e

p h y sical ad d ress asso ciated w ith th e IP ad d ress f o r th e e-m ails s e n t b y th e

rif f raf f sh aw n @y ah o o .co m em ail acco u n t. S u ch “f o ren sic ev id en ce co n n ectin g a

co m p u ter

. . . f

ro m w h ich th e e-m ails w ere sen t” is an accep tab le m ean s o f p r o v id in g

circu m s t a n t i a l e v id en ce to su p p o rt au th en ticatio n

. Id

. at 7 1 3

. G iv en th e am p le

circu m stan tial ev id en ce p resen ted in th is case th at th e em ail p rin to u ts w ere w h at William s

claim ed th em to b e, n am ely

, em ails sen t to h er b y ap p ellan t, co u p led w ith th e “lo w b ar” f o r

au th en ticatio n , th e trial c o u r t d id n o t err in ru lin g th at th e em ail p rin to u ts h ad b een

au th en ticated

. S

ee Griffin , 419 Md. at 367 (Harrell, J., dissenting).

( B ) B est E vid

en ce R u le

A p p ellan t asserts th at th e em ail p rin to u ts w ere n o t th e b est ev id en ce o f th e em ails in

q u estio n

. S p ecif

ically

, ap p ellan t claim s th at “th ere w as n ev er an y ex p lan atio n w h y th e o n ly

ev id en ce o f

f ered w as th e p rin to u ts o f th e em ails in stead o f g ettin g th e actu al em ails f ro m a

co m p u ter o r o n e o f th e em ail p ro v id ers.” A lth o u g h ap p ellan t d id ad m it th e em ails at issu e

w ere sen t f

ro m h is e ma i l a d d ress, h e d en ied sen d in g th em

. C o n seq u en tly

, ap p ellan t

3 6co n ten d s th at th ere w as n o reaso n to m erely in tro d u ce p rin to u ts o f th e n o ted em ails, an d th at

d o in g so v io lated th e b est ev id en ce ru le an d co n stitu ted rev ersib le erro r.

T h e S tate resp o n d s th at ap p ellan t’s b est ev id en ce arg u m en t is n o t p reserv ed

, b ecau se

ap p ellan t d id n o t seek to ex clu d e th e em ails o n th at b asis. We ag ree w ith th e S tate.

D u rin g t h e h earin g o n th e m o tio n in lim in e, d ef en se co u n sel raised tw o arg u m en ts

reg a r d in g th e ad m issio n o f th e em ails: w h eth er th ey co u ld b e au th en ticated b y William s

alo n e, an d w h eth er th ey co u ld o v erco m e th e h earsay ru le. D ef en se co u n sel n ev er raised th e

b est ev id en ce ru le, w h ich is a d istin ct ru le f ro m b o th au th en ticatio n an d h earsay

. C o m p a re

M d

. R u le 5 -1 0 0 3 w ith M d

. R u le 5 -8 0 2 a n d M d

. R u l e 5

- 9 0 1

. A s a resu lt, th is issu e is n o t

p reserv ed f

o r ap p ellate rev iew

.

JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT C OURT F O R P R I N C E G E O R G E ’ S C O U N T Y AFFIRMED; APPELLANT TO PAY COSTS.

3 7