Opinion ID: 1927121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mark D. Gunning, Sr.

Text: We begin with a brief summary of the facts in each case. Mark D. Gunning, Sr., was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon and related offenses arising from the February 4, 1994, robbery of Marie Hoopes. Gunning was convicted on all charges by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. At trial, Ms. Hoopes testified that she was attacked near her residence in Baltimore as she and her husband were entering their vehicle. The assailant grabbed Ms. Hoopes around her neck, held a knife to her throat, seized her purse, and fled. Ms. Hoopes never saw her attacker's face. Mr. William Hoopes testified that he was seated in the driver's seat of his vehicle during the attack on his wife. He indicated that he was approximately two feet from the assailant and stated that he looked straight in [the assailant's] eyes. Mr. Hoopes further testified that the attacker was wearing dark pants and [a] dark jacket, had on a black baseball cap ... with the [bill] turned around backwards, was between five-eight and six foot in height, and had a mustache. Mr. Hoopes made both a pre-trial identification by photographic array and an in-court identification of Gunning as the perpetrator of the crime. Gunning asserted an alibi defense to the charges. He presented testimonial evidence that he was at home watching a video tape with his father, sister, and a friend at the time of the robbery. Mr. Hoopes was thus mistaken, Gunning argued, in identifying him as the perpetrator. At the close of evidence, Gunning's counsel provided the court with proposed jury instructions, including an identification instruction contained in MICPEL, MARYLAND CRIMINAL PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS. That instruction, MPCJI-Cr 3:30, provided: The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed and that the defendant was the person who committed it. You have heard evidence regarding the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the crime. In this connection, you should consider the witness[s] opportunity to observe the criminal act and the person committing it, including the length of time the witness had to observe the person committing the crime, the witness[s] state of mind and any other circumstance surrounding the event. You should also consider the witness' certainty or lack of certainty, the accuracy of any prior description and the witness'[s] credibility or lack of credibility, as well as any other factor surrounding the identification. [You have heard evidence that prior to this trial, a witness identified the defendant by _______.] It is for you to determine the reliability of any identification and to give it the weight you believe it deserves. The identification of the defendant by a single eyewitness, as the person who committed the crime, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, can be enough evidence to convict the defendant. However, you must examine the identification of the defendant with great care. Counsel also requested the following mistaken identity instruction, which follows substantially the text of DAVID E. AARONSON, MARYLAND CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, § 5.10: Evidence has been introduced that William Hoopes is mistaken in identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. Whether or not a witness has adequately identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is a question solely for you to decide. In other words, the credibility of the witness is a matter for your consideration and determination. In reaching your determination, you may consider such factors as any mistake, hesitancy or inconsistency on the part of the identifying witness. Specifically, you may consider the opportunity of the witness to view the person committing the criminal acts at the time of the crime, including: (1) how long the encounter lasted; (2) the distance between the various persons; (3) the lighting conditions at the time; (4) the witness'[s] state of mind at the time of the offense; and (5) the witness'[s] degree of attention to the offender during the commission of the offense. Also, you may consider the accuracy of the witness'[s] prior description of the criminal, if any; the certainty or lack of certainty expressed by the witness; the demeanor and conduct of the witness making the identification; and any other direct or circumstantial evidence which may identify the person who committed the offense charged or which corroboratesthat is, strengthensor negates the identification of the defendant by the witness. The trial judge failed to give either identification instruction. When the court subsequently inquired as to whether there were any exceptions to the jury instructions, this exchange ensued: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would just ask the Court to read the mistaken identity jury instruction I gave the Court from Maryland Criminal Jury Instruction Manual. THE COURT: Identification is a[n] issue of fact, not of law. There is no issue of law that requires instruction to the jury on identification. (Emphasis added). The jury found Gunning guilty on all charges and the trial judge imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Appeal of his conviction on various grounds to the Court of Special Appeals proved unsuccessful. This Court granted certiorari on the single issue of whether the trial judge erred in refusing to give the instruction on eyewitness identification and indicating he never gives that instruction.