Opinion ID: 2318232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of the Evidence Regarding the Surviving Horses

Text: As a final matter, Hilton Silver argues that there was prejudicial error when the Circuit Court admitted other crimes evidence consisting of photographs of the two horses who survived. As Silver notes, Md. Rule 5-404(b) limits the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, and states: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts ... is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Silver cites Emory v. State, 101 Md.App. 585, 601, 604, 647 A.2d 1243, 1251, 1253 (1994), where the Court of Special Appeals stated that [t]he starting proposition with respect to `other crimes' evidence is that it should be excluded[,] and that [i]n terms of appellate review, this is a legal `call' as to which the trial judge is either right or wrong. There is no deference extended[.] Maryland Rule 5-404(b) is designed to prevent the State from bring[ing] in `out of left field' the fact that on some other occasion the defendant committed a crime. The danger being guarded against is that such past behavior will be offered to show and will be used by a jury to conclude that the defendant has a propensity to commit crime. Odum v. State, 412 Md. 593, 611, 989 A.2d 232, 242 (2010). As we recognized in Odum, these concerns do not necessarily apply to all evidence of what happens at a crime scene[,] and that such evidence may be admitted even though it might show some possible crime in addition to the one literally charged[.] Id. [22] Examining the disputed evidence in this case, we find that the concerns of Maryland Rule 5-404(b) are not present. The State did not introduce evidence of the condition of the other horses in order to show the Silvers' propensity to abuse animals, so as to prove they abused Calypso. Nor were the photos evidence of past crimes. Instead, the photos and testimony regarding the surviving horses are merely crime scene evidence. Indeed, the neglect of those two horses was intertwined and part of the same criminal episode. Admission of those photos, therefore, does not engage the gears of `other crimes' evidence law[,] and was appropriate even though it may have shown some possible crime in addition to the one literally charged. Odum, 412 Md. at 611, 989 A.2d at 242. We agree with the State, therefore, that the neglect of the surviving horses was not an other crime so as to render that evidence presumptively inadmissible. In any event, any error was harmless. The overwhelming majority of the evidence admitted at trial concerned Calypso's health. The evidence showed that Calypso had collapsed in the yard, in severe shock and extreme malnourishment, and had spent five days wriggling along the ground, trying to get up, such that she had dug out holes in the ground around her feet and head. We do not see how a fleeting mention of two underweight horses in the yard had any more than a negligible effect on the Circuit Court. We hold that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [23]