Opinion ID: 2556523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of Appellate Arguments.

Text: Although determining that Morris did not raise a Crawford argument on appeal, the Court of Special Appeals continued, holding that even if he had, the ultimate issue was waived. That is because, at the trial level, Morris took the stand in his own defense and gave testimony virtually identical to the portion of [Williams's] statement that he is complaining about. Relying principally upon Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 715-16, 415 A.2d 830, 841(1980), the intermediate appellate court observed that a defendant waive[s] his objection to the admission of . . . contested evidence, where he challenges initially the admission of certain evidence, but subsequently confirm[s], through his own testimony, the evidence to which he had previously objected. . . . Morris counters with State v. Logan, 394 Md. 378, 390, 906 A.2d 374, 381 (2006), in which we stated that a defendant does not waive an error by attempting to minimize or explain improperly admitted evidence. We perceived that [i]t would be unfair to permit the State to introduce evidence, albeit later found to be inadmissible, but not to permit the defendant, upon pain of waiver, to attempt to meet it, explain it, rebut it or deny it. Id. Based on our reading of the record, it appears to us that Morris took the stand to try to explain, if not rebut, his seeming involvement as the pre-ordained getaway driver. The characterization of him as the getaway driver was based partly on the officers' testimony, which, among other things, placed Williams in Morris's white car shortly after the attempted robbery. Williams's statement, however, also identified Morris, but in an indirect, subtle, and potentially conflicting way. Earlier in his confession, Williams indicated that, after the botched robbery attempt, he ran towards Falls Road. In response to the question, [w]hat color was the vehicle that you got into at the scene,  however, Williams said [w]hite, without acknowledginglet alone delimitingthe inquisitorial phrase at the scene. When Morris took the stand at trial, he tried to explain his version of the origin and nature of his encounter with Williams on the date in question and, thereby, establish his unwitting participant defense. Without more, we must assume Morris was doing so in response to both the police testimony and Williams's statement. We determine that Morris raisedand did not subsequently waivehis severance and Crawford arguments (indeed, they are one and the same). We also disagree with our appellate colleagues that Morris affirmatively waived [his] complaint about his joint trial. . . .