Opinion ID: 1926022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Allegedly Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Testimony

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence when it admitted evidence of threats made to two witnesses, Adrian and Thomas Washington, evidence that Appellant had hit Kristi previously, and evidence that Appellant carried a gun. Appellant argues that this evidence was admitted improperly because the evidence was irrelevant, and, even if relevant, its probative value was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice. Therefore, the evidence should have been excluded under Maryland Rule 5-403. [6] Because the evidence here at issue involves, at least arguably, some form of misconduct on the part of Appellant, Rule 5-404(b), the rule excluding so-called bad acts evidence, is also implicated. [7]
On the day of the murders, Thomas Washington, who was the husband of a relative of Kristi Gentry, spoke to Ware by telephone while Ware was at the Gentrys' house. Appellant moved in limine to preclude Thomas from testifying to some statements Ware made in this telephone call. In particular, Appellant sought exclusion of Thomas's proffered statement that Ware had asked Thomas whether he was bulletproof. Appellant argues that the evidence was irrelevant, that it was at best a threat against Thomas, and that any probative value was outweighed by the prejudice. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, Thomas testified, and Appellant objected: [THOMAS:] When we first started conversing it was pretty normal. But towards the end of our conversation it started getting more aggressive, and he started getting a little bit more boisterous with his attitude toward me, and I was trying to help out my family member. [STATE'S ATT'Y:] Okay. And how did that conversation end? [THOMAS:] It ended with him basically asking me was I bulletproof. [DEF. ATT'Y:] Objection. Move to strike. THE COURT: Overruled. [STATE'S ATT'Y:] What did defendant say to you? [THOMAS:] He asked me was I bulletproof, he told me he knew where I lived and that he basically was going to get me and my punk-ass brother [i.e., Adrian Washington]. [DEF. ATT'Y:] Objection. Move to strike. THE COURT: Overruled. We begin our analysis by repeating that the trial court is afforded great deference in its rulings on admissibility of evidence and that rulings as to relevancy will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. See Hopkins v. State, 352 Md. 146, 158, 721 A.2d 231, 238 (1998). The trial judge's conclusion that Thomas's testimony was relevant is amply supported by the record. Appellant's statements to Thomas were made approximately three hours before the murders. Thomas's testimony is probative of the proposition that, within the pertinent time frame, Appellant was angry and in a violent frame of mind, and reacted during that time to objects of his anger with an impulse to shoot them. This proposition is probative of Appellant's motive to kill Kristi. While the testimony may have been prejudicial, it was not unfairly so under the facts of the case. We find no error.
Kevin Gentry testified that, three months before the altercation with Ware on December 30, 1993, he had told Ware that if he ever put his hands on my sister again, I would beat him up. Appellant argues that this testimony was inadmissible evidence of prior misconduct, carried no probative value, and was prejudicial. After the telephone conversation described above between Thomas and Ware, Thomas telephoned Kevin Gentry, Kristi's brother. Kevin testified as a prosecution witness that, after speaking to Thomas, he drove to the Gentry house, where he confronted Ware, engaged in an altercation with him, and ejected him from the house. The prosecutor asked Kevin, what prompted you to beat Mr. Ware up in that manner? The defense objected, and, at the bench, the State argued that the jury should know that Appellant had hit Kristi on a previous occasion, leading Kevin to warn him that he would be beaten if it happened again. The State proffered that the witness would testify that on a previous occasion there was an altercation, and he told Ware, if you ever lay hands on my sister again, I am going to beat you up without any further conversation. The State argued that without this testimony, it would look[ ] like he just went in and beat Ware up for no reason. The court overruled the objection, concluding that the evidence was not offered for its truth, but simply to show why Kevin acted as he did. The witness told the jury: If he ever put his hands on my sister again, I would beat him up. Relying on Rule 5-404(b), Appellant argues that the testimony was irrelevant to any issue in the case, because the action the testimony was meant to justify was itself irrelevant to any issue in the case. He maintains that Kevin Gentry's testimony left the jury to speculate as to what Appellant had previously done to Kristi, when it occurred, and whether it demonstrated a propensity to engage in violence against her. At the outset, we note that evidence of the deterioration in Ware and Kristi's relationship came from many sources without objection. Several witnesses testified that the arguments between the two had escalated to the point of physical violence. Kevin had testified that he knew Ware as his sister's boyfriend. When he arrived at the Gentry residence on December 30, 1993, Kevin saw Ware's car. Kevin rang the doorbell and, when Ware opened the door, Kevin began hitting Ware. The testimony in question was offered to explain Kevin's actions. The testimony was relevant to put Kevin's conduct in context. It was not offered for its truth, but simply to show why Kevin acted as he did. The evidence that Kevin hit Ware the morning of the murders was relevant to show Ware's escalating anger towards Kristi on the day of the murder. In fact, several witnesses testified to this escalating anger and Appellant's build-up of rage towards Kristi. It is the function of the trial judge to assess the probative value of evidence and to weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the State's witness, Sean LeBere, that Appellant had a gun and that he always carried it with him. Sean LeBere was an acquaintance of Ware's for six or seven months preceding the murders. LeBere testified that he saw Ware about two or three days per week during this period. The State asked LeBere, During the six or seven months before December 30th of 1993, did you ever see the Defendant with a gun? The defense objected on grounds of relevancy. The State argued that the evidence was relevant because the murders were committed with a gun, which was never found, and the testimony tended to show that Ware possessed a gun. Defense counsel argued that conduct beginning six to seven months before the murders was irrelevant and that [h]is habits are irrelevant. The court overruled the objection, and, in response to the question of how often LeBere had seen Ware with a gun, LeBere answered, He always carried one with him. Although conceding that evidence that he possessed a gun close to the time of the murders was relevant, Appellant argues that evidence that he did so continuously over a period of several months preceding the murders is not relevant and that it violates Maryland Rule 5-404(b). The State argues that LeBere's testimony that Ware always carried a gun was as relevant as the testimony of other witnesses that Ware had a gun a short time before the murders and that, in light of this other unobjected to testimony that Ware carried a gun frequently, any error in the admission of LeBere's testimony was harmless. Appellant objected below on the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant and that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Appellant's argument that the evidence ran afoul of Rule 5-404(b) was never made to the trial court and therefore was not preserved. See Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 541-42, 735 A.2d 1061, 1068 (1999) (holding that a defendant waives the right to argue on appeal that testimony was inadmissible bad acts evidence when the only objection at trial was on grounds of relevancy). We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. It was relevant to establish that Ware possessed a gun and as evidence of habit that he carried a gun. Evidence of a person's habit is explicitly deemed relevant by Rule 5-406 to prove action in conformity with the habit: Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Evidence that a person has a habit of doing something is relevant to show that the person engaged in the conduct on a particular occasion. Here, evidence that Ware was in the habit of carrying a gun made it more likely that he had a gun on the day of the murders. This was habit evidence, admissible under Rule 5-406, and not evidence of a bad act to show character under Rule 5-404(b). [8] There was no error.