Opinion ID: 1941114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Bloods Did It To Me

Text: The first piece of gang evidence was offered when the State asked Prison Officer E. Davis about what the victim told her when she found him. DeLeon immediately offered the following objections: [Defense Counsel]: What the State is trying to get at is I guess an excited utterance with reference to this. I have a couple of objections. One, the victim is going to be testifying  testify [sic] what he said or didn't say at that point. Secondly, there is some reference to gangs which  carefully.  tip-toe around to it. And I don't know if he is going to be saying something about the Bloods did this to me, which has been provided  I would be objecting to his reference to that. And thirdly, I don't think you can set a foundation for excited utterance by other hearsay. This objection led to a colloquy in which defense counsel furnished additional grounds for his objection [2] and the prosecutor defended her line of questioning: [Prosecutor]: Well that is not true. An excited utterance shows that the person doesn't have time to reflect, that they are saying things in the throes of the emotional environment. He is upset. He thinks he is dying. He is asking for help. . . . [I]t's something that the courts have found is reliable because a person doesn't have time to sit back and make something up. Also he is going to tell who has assaulted him. And the gang evidence in the case that I have [ Ayala v. State, 174 Md.App. 647, 923 A.2d 952, cert. denied, 401 Md. 173, 931 A.2d 1095 (2007)] says that gang evidence is admissible, not to show that someone is a bad person, but to show motive for the crime. The reason why an otherwise unthinkable crime has occurred is because the gang evidence says you can use it to show why people are acting together. Why they were acting to attack somebody. In this case we are saying between four to five people attacked this man simply because they were a member of a gang.    [Defense Counsel]: If you are going to get into gangs you have to show in that case a basis of knowledge. You can't just say that it is a gang, you have to say why he would know that it is a gang. That is why it would be  through her. It may be that they can set the foundation through the victim as to how he knows Mr. DeLeon. But to get to bring it in through her, then you avoid the basis of that case and that decision. [Prosecutor]: But the reason I am bringing in what he says is not to prove that this person is a member of a gang. I haven't gotten there yet. I am bringing in the excited utterance that the victim was saying.    [Court]: . . . . It could be an excited utterance.  certainly to have been stabbed multiple times  I mean how much more excited can you get. [Defense Counsel]: Well I think once they lay that foundation that probably is an excited utterance. What she was laying a foundation was saying what did he say. And you can't say what did he say to clear the excited utterance about something like that. You can't use the hearsay to create the exception to the hearsay.    Now secondly, it is the gang point that I object to because that is the reliability and basis of knowledge. We have no understanding  we have no basis of why he is saying it's the Bloods. I think she probably could  if he tells her who the people are when she sets the foundation of the excited utterance.    [Court]: I don't think it is necessarily being offered for the purpose of even showing that the Bloods are a gang. It is an identification issue. [Defense Counsel]: I will raise the objection without interrupting[.][ [3] ] The State then offered testimony to support its contention that Fennel made a spontaneous excited utterance: [Prosecutor]: Was he calm as he said this? [Davis]: No, he was like yelling at us. Help, help, help, I'm in pain, I'm in pain. My eye, my eye. Help, help, somebody help. Officer Davis's most damning testimony followed: [Prosecutor]: What did he say to you? [Defense Counsel]: Objection for reasons at the Bench. [Court]: Overruled. [Davis]: He said I'm going to tell you all who did it because if I die, I want you all to know who did this to me. And he was like the Bloods did it to me. DeLeon, Payne and King. (Emphasis added.) The parties disagree about the nature of DeLeon's objection expressed during this colloquy. Under Maryland Rule 4-323(a), The grounds for the objection need not be stated unless the court, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, so directs. Thus, a party basing an appeal on a general objection to admission of certain evidence, may argue any ground against its inadmissibility. Boyd v. State, 399 Md. 457, 475-76, 924 A.2d 1112, 1122-23 (2007). DeLeon contends that his objection to Officer Davis' testimony qualifies as a general one, and thus preserves his appellate arguments that the gang membership evidence was not relevant, and was highly prejudicial. The flaw in DeLeon's theory is revealed by examination of his trial objections, which went too far to be a general objection and not far enough to preserve his arguments on appeal. An objection loses its status as a general one where a rule requires the ground to be stated, where the trial court requests that the ground be stated, and ` where the objector, although not requested by the court, voluntarily offers specific reasons for objecting to certain evidence [.]' Id. at 476, 924 A.2d at 1123 (citations omitted, emphasis added). As demonstrated by the transcript passage above, counsel chose a more forceful approach than merely offering a general objection and instead advanced several reasons to support DeLeon's objection to Davis' recounting of the victim's incriminating declaration. Thus, the objection was not a general objection under the rule stated in Boyd and, accordingly, DeLeon is limited to the grounds explicitly raised in the trial court. DeLeon asserts that his relevancy objection was raised below; not by him, but by the State, when the prosecutor offered Ayala v. State, 174 Md.App. 647, 923 A.2d 952, cert. denied, 401 Md. 173, 931 A.2d 1095 (2007) as a case supporting admission. After DeLeon made a foundation objection to the State's question about DeLeon belonging to the Bloods, the prosecutor cited Ayala to rebut the objection, saying, [T]he case I have says that gang evidence is admissible, not to show that someone is a bad person, but to show the motive for the crime. In Ayala, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether testimony of gang involvement was prohibited because it was introduced to show bad character or prior bad acts in violation of Maryland Rule 5-404(b). The court concluded that evidence of Ayala's gang membership was highly probative as to his motive to kill the victim, who was a member of a rival gang, and was not unduly prejudicial. Ayala, 174 Md.App. at 664, 923 A.2d at 962. We do not consider the State's mention of Ayala sufficient to preserve DeLeon's appellate objection that the gang evidence was prejudicial and not relevant. The colloquy between the court and counsel set forth above reveals that the thrust of DeLeon's objection was that the State needed to submit evidence that he was a gang member, before they introduced the victim's statement that the Bloods did it to me. He even characterized it as a foundation objection. He did not argue, as he does here, that any gang evidence was prejudicial because it conjured up criminal violence in the jury's mind. The trial court was necessarily focused on the grounds for DeLeon's objection, and not on whether mention of the Bloods was bad character evidence or whether the jury would be unduly influenced to convict because they have negative associations with the Bloods or gangs in general. The essence of the preservation rule is that the trial court must have an opportunity to consider the issue, and rule on it first, in the context of the trial. It cannot be expected to do so just because the State cites a case that would support opposition to an objection never made. Accordingly, DeLeon's arguments in this appeal against admissibility of the victim's incriminating declaration are limited to those stated in the trial court: reliability and basis of knowledge. We turn to these arguments now.