Opinion ID: 2076252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Major Thompson's Opinion of Hunt's Dangerousness

Text: Hunt contends that the trial judge erred in admitting Major Thompson's opinion that Hunt was dangerous. After Major Thompson had testified about Hunt's behavior in prison and about prison disciplinary procedures, he testified as follows: [STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Have you made a decision about Flint Gregory Hunt? A. Yes. Q. What do you consider him? A. Oh, he's dangerous. He's dangerous. [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Hunt's only contention on appeal is that there was no evidentiary basis for Major Thompson's opinion on this issue. We initially point out that once again Hunt's attorney merely objected to the answer. He did not ask the court to strike the testimony, did not move for a mistrial, and did not ask for a cautionary instruction. Even if Hunt had sought curative action, we would find no reversible error. Hunt's contention on appeal is not that the opinion was improper, but that Major Thompson was not competent to express the opinion. Hunt acknowledges that the opinion was related to an important mitigating factor. A witness must have an adequate basis for an opinion about the character of another before the opinion may be admitted into evidence. Durkin v. State, 284 Md. 445, 453, 397 A.2d 600, 605 (1979). The trial judge determines whether the witness satisfies this requirement, and the judge's determination will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. The jury heard a great deal of evidence on the issue of Hunt's dangerousness. Mitigating circumstances number 7 was [i]t is unlikely that the defendant will engage in further criminal activity that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Hunt called as a witness Gordon Kamka, the former Secretary for Public Safety. Mr. Kamka was questioned about his opinion as to whether or not Hunt would be a danger within the institution. Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, as an expert in correctional administration whether Mr. Hunt is a danger in the institution? A. I do have an opinion. Q. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that is? A. I don't believe he is a danger inside the institution. He is a problem to the correctional staff, in that he has a number of disciplinary reports, a number of tickets, is what we call them, but I see no indication that he is any particular danger to himself or to other people. A problem, yes; irritant, yes; danger, in my opinion, no. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by determining that Major Thompson had an adequate basis for forming an opinion about Hunt's dangerousness. Certainly, Major Thompson was as qualified as defense witness Kamka. Mr. Kamka met Hunt once, and reviewed his records. Major Thompson had 16 years of experience as a correctional officer. He was Chief of Security for the Maryland Penitentiary. As a security officer, he was aware of Hunt's many infractions in the penitentiary. Major Thompson received reports on Hunt's violations of the rule prohibiting possession of weapons. He knew that Hunt was placed in segregation status for those violations. Major Thompson's testimony was specifically about Hunt's dangerousness in the prison, not Hunt's general capacity for dangerousness. Major Thompson was qualified to form and offer an opinion on the subject.