Opinion ID: 2721747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Police Report was Admissible

Text: Foundation Laid by Defense Counsel, Offer of Report, and Court Ruling At trial, Laura B. testified on direct examination, that she was taking a nap on the night of the alleged rape, and that she first knew that Mr. Brooks was in her house when she heard a noise, awoke, realized an intruder was in her bedroom, and recognized Mr. Brooks. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to impeach Laura B. through a police report by Deputy Faby. Among other things, that report summarized his brief conversation with Laura B. that night after the police arrived at her home. The portion of that report that was allegedly inconsistent with her trial testimony stated: ... Upon arrival on the scene, Dfc. Faby made contact with the complainant [Laura B.]. When asked what had happened, [Laura B.] advised the following. She advised that she had Wardell Brooks over to her house at 1930 hrs. She advised that during this time, Mr. Brooks said “I want some pussy.” She advised that she told him no but he kept following her around the house. She advised that she went into her bedroom to take a nap. She was awoken by the sound of him stumbling through the bedroom door. She saw that he was not wearing a shirt and had his pants down around his ankles.… 10 While the report was consistent with Laura B.’s testimony that she was raped by Mr. Brooks,5 the defense argued that it could be interpreted to mean that Laura B. had invited Mr. Brooks to her house that evening, which would be inconsistent with her testimony that he was an unexpected intruder. Defense counsel cross-examined Laura B. concerning her conversation with Deputy Faby that night as follows: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you remembering speaking to a Deputy Faby, a uniformed deputy sheriff, that evening when [the police] came to your house? [LAURA B.]: I spoke to someone. I have no idea who it was. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You just don’t remember his name, right? [LAURA B.]: Right. ... [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you remember telling this deputy . . . that you had Wardell Brooks over your house about 7:30 that evening? [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Objection, your Honor. [LAURA B.]: I did not. 5 The second paragraph of the report recounted Laura B.’s struggle with Mr. Brooks, his assault of her, her submission to his advances, and her escape in terms similar to her testimony at trial. The third and final paragraph of the report concerned the apprehension of Mr. Brooks, the transport of Laura B. to the hospital, and other details of the investigation that night. 11 [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. … [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... [D]id an officer ask you a question, and did you respond that Wardell Brooks had come over to your house at 7:30 that evening? [LAURA B.]: I said that Wardell Brooks – they asked what time he came in, and I said that I noticed him, I woke up at approximately dusk. I didn’t know the time. It was 6:30 or 7:30. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ma’am, please listen to the question. [LAURA B.]: I am trying to. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just listen to my question. Did you or did you not tell Officer Faby or some other uniformed officer that evening at your house when they arrived that you had Wardell Brooks over your house about 7:30 that evening? [LAURA B.]: No. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did you or did you not? [LAURA B.]: No. Counsel argued to the court their respective positions concerning the admissibility of the prior allegedly inconsistent statement of Laura B. to Deputy Faby. Defense counsel relied on Maryland Rules 5-613, while the Assistant State’s Attorney argued that the requirements of Maryland Rules 5-802 and 5-802.1, concerning exceptions to the hearsay rule, also had 12 to be satisfied. Defense counsel did not offer the report in evidence during Laura B.’s testimony. The State called Deputy Faby as its next witness. During cross-examination, Deputy Faby confirmed that he had written a police report concerning the incident. Defense counsel produced a copy of Deputy Faby’s report, which was marked for identification as Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Defense counsel then questioned Deputy Faby concerning the report as follows: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And as a result of your conversation with [Laura B.], you indicated that you generated some notes, and is it fair to say that you subsequently reduced that to the document marked as Defense Exhibit 1? [DEPUTY FABY]: That’s correct. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that is your signature at the bottom, correct? [DEPUTY FABY]: Yes. … [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And is that a fair and accurate representation of the information that you took from your notes and put in that report? [DEPUTY FABY]: Yes. Defense counsel then moved that the report be admitted into evidence. The State objected. A bench conference was held to discuss the admissibility of the report. Although the 13 prosecutor recognized that defense counsel was trying to impeach Laura B., his argument centered around Rule 5-802.1 and defense counsel also focused on that rule: [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: There is no rule that provides for a police report per se to be admitted into evidence. . . . And, again, I have to refer back to the rules. 5-802.1 doesn’t allow for that because the three sub areas that would allow that would be, number one, a written statement signed by her, and it was not; number two is that electronically recorded, essentially verbatim statement of hers, and it’s not; and the third one is it’s some other statement by her that maybe she didn't sign that wasn’t recorded in some other fashion, but that she somehow otherwise adopts it. . . [T]his doesn’t come in under any of those. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Under 5-802, as long as an adversary party is introducing the statement of the officer into evidence, then it is an exception to the hearsay rule. The Circuit Court ultimately agreed with the State’s approach to the issue: I still think [the State’s] interpretation of the rule is the correct one. It hasn’t been adopted by the witness, the previous witness in this case, as a prior statement. This is just the officer’s recordation of what he believes he was told by the witness. So it doesn’t come in. … But it doesn’t come in under this provision. It doesn’t come in also because you have the officer in here testifying. It doesn’t come in. After that ruling, defense counsel did not ask Deputy Faby about his notes or about the statement allegedly made to him by Laura B. that “she had [Mr. Brooks] over to her house.” The State called two other police officers to testify, and the court adjourned the proceeding for the day. 14 The next morning, defense counsel asked the trial court to reconsider its ruling on the admissibility of Deputy Faby’s report. This time, defense counsel invoked Rules 5-613 and 5-616, and argued that the requirements of Rule 5-802.1 were not applicable because the report was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but was being offered for the purpose of impeachment: [DEFENSE COUNSEL] Yesterday Your Honor ruled on my request to admit Defendant’s Exhibit Number 1, which was a statement taken from [Laura B.] by Dfc Faby. We reapproached the bench, and I made an argument that it should come in as a prior inconsistent statement under Rules 5-613, 5-616, and 5- 801, and the appropriate sections, subsections, that we argued at the bench yesterday. I believe implicit in that, and without saying anything, that the Court should have considered that statement should come in as non hearsay, not offered for the truth, because it was being offered for purposes of the lack of credibility of the witness, who was [Laura B.]. Again, the prosecutor focused on Maryland Rule 5-802.1 concerning exceptions to the hearsay rule: [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Well, Your Honor, I think we still go back to the requirements of Rule 5-802.1 under subsection (a) that unless it’s a purported statement of a witness which is otherwise signed, recorded verbatim, usually through electronic means or otherwise adopted by a witness, that it’s not subject to being admitted because it doesn’t meet the requirements of that rule, and that has not changed. Defense counsel once again argued that the requirements of the hearsay rules were not applicable: 15 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, 5-802.1(a) has nothing to do with its admissibility, the admissibility of the statement as a statement being admitted as non hearsay for purposes of showing an inconsistent statement that would relate to the credibility of the witness. We have a witness who testified she gave no permission to have Mr. Brooks come into her house that day, and she makes a statement, at least it’s in Deputy Faby’s report, that she had Mr. Brooks over that day, which is totally and completely inconsistent. It’s not necessary to even address 5-802.1 for that purpose, and, therefore, I think [the Assistant State’s Attorney]’s argument is not appropriate on that issue. Ultimately, the Circuit Court ruled that the report was not admissible because Laura B. neither signed nor adopted the report. The Circuit Court also appeared to conclude that Rule 5-802.1 was applicable because the report was being offered for the truth of the matter asserted in it: My prior ruling will stand. In addition to those reasons that I indicated earlier, but also because in this case, you still have to get over the hurdle of the witness having adopted it or signed it, and you are not over that hurdle in this case. And it really does go, and it is being offered, really, to go to the heart of what's being asserted, the truth of the matter asserted here: how did Mr. Brooks get into the victim’s home? So the previous ruling stands and the report is not admissible.