Opinion ID: 1927300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of other assaults or child abuse by the same defendant on the same victim

Text: The admissibility of other crimes evidence is governed by Maryland Rule 5-404(b) which provides: (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. 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. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Evidence of other crimes or other bad acts committed by the accused is not admissible unless it has special relevance, i.e., it is substantially relevant to some contested issue and is not offered simply to prove criminal character. See Md. Rule 5-404; Harris v. State, 324 Md. 490, 497, 597 A.2d 956, 960 (1991); Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 473, 386 A.2d 757, 761 (1978); see also State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630, 634, 552 A.2d 896, 897-98 (1989); Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669, 350 A.2d 680, 684 (1976)(quoting CHARLES T. McCORMICK, EVIDENCE § 190 (2d ed. 1972)) ([T]he state may not present evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is `substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that he committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character.'). As we noted in Cross, 282 Md. at 473, 386 A.2d at 761: [T]here are few principles of American criminal jurisprudence more universally accepted than the rule that evidence which tends to show that the accused committed another crime independent of that for which he is on trial, even one of the same type, is inadmissible. Such other crimes evidence lacks special relevance because it is generally more prejudicial than probative. McKnight, 280 Md. at 611, 375 A.2d at 555; see Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602, 631 n. 8, 645 A.2d 22, 36 n. 8 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1130, 115 S.Ct. 942, 130 L.Ed.2d 886 (1995). Thus, the evidence must ordinarily tend to prove motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme, or identity embracing the commission of two or more crimes to escape exclusion by the general rule. Acuna v. State, 332 Md. 65, 74-75, 629 A.2d 1233, 1237-38 (1993); Harris, 324 Md. at 501, 597 A.2d at 962; Cross, 282 Md. at 473-74, 386 A.2d at 761; Ross, 276 Md. at 669-70, 350 A.2d at 684; Purviance v. State, 185 Md. 189, 196, 44 A.2d 474, 477 (1945); JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., MARYLAND EVIDENCE HANDBOOK § 510(E)(2d ed.1993); LYNN MCLAIN, MARYLAND EVIDENCE § 404.5 (1987). The evidence may also be admitted if the crimes are so linked together in point of time or circumstances that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other. Bryant v. State, 207 Md. 565, 586, 115 A.2d 502, 511 (1955). Underlying this rule is the concern that the jury will use the other crimes evidence to convict and punish the defendant for having a criminal disposition or to infer that he is more likely to have committed the crime for which he is on trial. Straughn v. State, 297 Md. 329, 333, 465 A.2d 1166, 1168-69 (1983); see also Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 334, 631 A.2d 424, 426 (1993)(Such evidence may tend to confuse the jurors, predispose them to a belief in the defendant's guilt, or prejudice their minds against the defendant.); Faulkner, 314 Md. at 633, 552 A.2d at 897 (same); Ross, 276 Md. at 669, 350 A.2d at 684 (same). With these principles in mind we also note that several of our prior cases construing the child abuse statute have recognized the relevance of intent and malice in child abuse cases. Intent and malice can be critical in distinguishing permissible parental corporal punishment from criminal child abuse. Abuse is defined in the child abuse statute as: (i) The sustaining of physical injury by a child as a result of cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of a malicious act by any parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child, or by any household or family member, under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby; or (ii) Sexual abuse of a child, whether physical injuries are sustained or not. Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 35C. This Court fully explained the mental state required for child abuse in Bowers v. State, 283 Md. 115, 389 A.2d 341 (1978). In Bowers the defendant challenged the child abuse statute as being void for vagueness and not specifying the difference between permissible corporal punishment and child abuse. We gave a lengthy explanation of the difference between non-criminal corporal punishment and child abuse. This Court stated: Long before the advent of contemporary child abuse legislation, it was a well-recognized precept of Anglo-American jurisprudence that the parent of a minor child or one standing in loco parentis was justified in using a reasonable amount of force upon a child for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare. So long as the chastisement was moderate and reasonable, in light of the age, condition and disposition of the child, and other surrounding circumstances, the parent or custodian would not incur criminal liability for assault and battery or a similar offense. On the other hand, where corporal punishment was inflicted with `a malicious desire to cause pain' or where it amounted to `cruel and outrageous' treatment of the child, the chastisement was deemed unreasonable, thus defeating the parental privilege and subjecting the parent to penal sanctions in those circumstances where criminal liability would have existed absent the parent-child relationship. Put another way, a parent was not permitted under the common law to resort to punishment which would exceed `that properly required for disciplinary purposes' or which would extend beyond the bounds of moderation. `Excessive or cruel' conduct was universally prohibited. In amending the child abuse statute in 1973 so as to include for the first time a definition of abuse, the General Assembly was well aware of the common law limitations on the parental privilege to impose discipline. Indeed, we have repeatedly held that the Legislature is presumed to have had full knowledge and information as to prior and existing law on the subject of a statute it has enacted. By electing to restrict the criminal liability of parents under the statute only to those cases where the parent or custodian causes his child or ward to sustain physical injury as a result of cruel or inhumane treatment or as a result of other acts of malice, the Legislature apparently intended the definition of abuse to correspond to that type of conduct which would have sufficed to destroy the privilege to discipline at common law. Thus, the terminology employed in Article 27, § 35A(b)(7)(A) appears to be nothing but a codification of the common law principles concerning the limits of permissible parental chastisement. Since the contours of the common law privilege have been subject for centuries to definition and refinement through careful and constant judicial decision-making, terms like `cruel or inhumane' and `malicious' have acquired a relatively widely accepted connotation in the law. The use of such phraseology in the child abuse statute would, therefore, not render the law constitutionally infirm. For these reasons, the Maryland child abuse law is sufficiently explicit to survive even strict scrutiny under the Due Process Clause. First, it meets the requirement of notice, such that persons of common intelligence need not guess at its meaning or speculate as to its application. If the underlying rationale of the fair notice requirement is that a conviction should not result from conduct which cannot reasonably be understood as proscribed, that danger has been avoided here. Parents of ordinary intelligence are made aware that they do not subject themselves to the statute by merely engaging in corporal discipline for the purpose of punishment or correction. Only when the line is crossed and physical injury is intentionally and maliciously or cruelly inflicted does criminal responsibility attach. In short, the statute provides fair warning; it sets no trap for the unwary or innocent parent. (Emphasis added) (citations omitted). Bowers, 283 Md. at 126-28, 389 A.2d at 348-49. Lack of intent or malice was a contention of the defense in the instant case. Proof of other brutality against Keith by his stepfather was admissible to prove Taylor's intent and malice. In addition, where a primary issue is the culpable state of mind of the defendant, any chance of prejudice by virtue of the admission of prior bad acts is less than if the primary issue is identity of the perpetrator. Taylor chose not to take the stand. The defense strategy was to rely on the plea of not guilty and to require the State to prove each element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel did, however, acknowledge that identity was really not in dispute. At the hearing on the motion for separate trials, the defense counsel stated: There is no suggestion here that there's a problem with identification. I would suggest that identification is not an issue here. The contention was that either Keith was fabricating his claims of child abuse or Taylor was acting in the role of Keith's father, and these were permissible disciplinary acts, not child abuse or battery. Because Keith bore visible evidence of the two acts of abuse for which Taylor was convicted and the blows could not be imaginary, the central issue in the case seemed to be whether the blows exceeded permissible parental discipline. Intent to cause physical injury and malice were important elements of the State's case. Sexual child abuse and physical child abuse are both crimes under the same statute. This Court has expressly permitted prior acts of sexual child abuse perpetrated by the defendant against the same victim to be admissible in sexual child abuse cases even though malice and intent are irrelevant in such cases, and accident is almost never a defense. See, for example, Vogel v. State, 315 Md. 458, 554 A.2d 1231 (1989), a sexual child abuse case where this Court sustained the admission of evidence of other sex acts perpetrated by the defendant against the same fourteen-year-old victim. Vogel was reaffirmed in Acuna v. State, 332 Md. 65, 629 A.2d 1233 (1993)(holding prior acts of sexual child abuse by the defendant against the same victim admissible). The justification for admitting other acts of abuse is even greater in physical child abuse cases than in sexual child abuse cases, for there is rarely any claim that sexual child abuse is accidental or is proper parental discipline. A case relevant to the issue in the instant case is Duckworth v. State, 323 Md. 532, 594 A.2d 109 (1991). In Duckworth the defendant was convicted of child abuse and battery of a three-year-old girl left in his charge. 323 Md. at 534-35, 594 A.2d at 110. The evidence was that the defendant was holding a handgun loaded with birdshot that discharged and injured the child. Duckworth, 323 Md. at 535-36, 594 A.2d at 110-11. Over objection, the State was permitted to introduce testimony that, on a prior occasion, the defendant injured the same child with a BB pistol. Duckworth, 323 Md. at 537-39, 594 A.2d at 112-14. This Court held that the prior shooting incident was admissible on both the battery charge, to prove recklessness, and the child abuse charge. Duckworth, 323 Md. at 544, 594 A.2d at 114-15. We stated: Thus, the State's theory of the case on the battery charge was legally sound, namely, that Duckworth criminally wounded Mandy by recklessly handling a firearm. It follows that the testimony by Mandy's mother concerning an accidental shooting with a BB gun approximately one week prior to the battery was clearly relevant. Mandy was struck by a BB on the earlier occasionprecisely where, we do not know. The jurors might well reason that one in the position of Duckworth would be relieved that the accidental discharge of the BB gun had not blinded Mandy. Certainly, the jury could conclude that the accidental discharge of the BB gun in the earlier incident was a warning to Duckworth that should have reinforced the need for substantial caution when handling firearms. Duckworth's failure, on the occasion of the shooting charged in the indictment, to heed that warning exacerbated the recklessness involved in the crime charged.