Opinion ID: 2317297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Evidence Concerning an Unrelated Crime

Text: At the guilt stage of the trial, the court, over challenge, admitted into evidence the testimony of one Kenneth Ferber, an acquaintance of Lodowski. [9] Ferber testified that about a month before the crimes were committed at the Minimart, Lodowski asked him if he wanted to make some money. I asked him how. He asked if I wanted to do a job with him. I asked him, you know, what he was talking about, and he went over to his couch, and he pulled out a sawed-off shotgun which he pumped        Well, I asked him what he was going to do. You know, he wouldn't tell me. He wouldn't tell me anything. He wanted to know if I was in or out. You know, as soon as I knew it had something to do with that kind of thing, I said, What, are you crazy or something? `cause I didn't want to be involved in anything like that. Then, after that, I just, you know, I kept asking him what, you know, what was going to happen, what he was going to do. He kept on asking me if I was in or out, he kept on giving me information, like. I said, What, are you going to shoot somebody or something? He said, Maybe. When he said that, that freaked me out, cause I never thought that Kenny would ever, you know, could ever hurt anyone, but after  after he said that, I just kept questioning him, you know. He kept on saying, Are you in or out? I said, Who are you going to shoot? Also, he asked me  I asked him what he would, you know  if I'm in, what will I have to do. He said, just hold a gun while somebody threw money to him in a bag. Okay. So then, after that, he asked me if I was in or out again, and I asked him  let me think. I said, What, are you going to shoot somebody? Like I said before, he said he might have to shoot a security guard that was sitting in a  that would be sitting in a car at the scene.       Then I said, Where is it? ... I just kept on asking him locations. He said that  it came to Virginia and a liquor store, is what I finally got out of him. There was no other evidence concerning the perpetration of such a crime in Virginia. The testimony of Ferber was challenged by a motion in limine which was heard at the bench. Defense counsel argued that the contemplated crime which was the subject of Lodowski's conversation with Ferber was not the same crime for which Lodowski was being tried. The defense observed that if Lodowski was talking about a situation involving the death of a police officer, if that's confined to a liquor store in Virginia, I think we have one situation; if it's confined to the Minimart in Greenbelt, then I think we have another situation. The State's Attorney stated his position: Anybody who has a conversation with anybody about killing a police officer, and subsequently is charged with the crime of killing a police officer anywhere in this country, I think that type of testimony would be, in fact, admissible as to his state of mind, if nothing else, at that particular time. The judge had indicated that I'll let [Ferber] testify to anything concerning a place where a police officer was. The judge in ruling on the motion expressly assumed that Lodowski was talking about a liquor store in Virginia. The judge asked: Why isn't [the conversation] relevant, if [Lodowski's] ultimate purpose was the Minimart, and he's just feeling [Ferber] out? In denying the motion in limine the judge made no express findings of fact and did not give the reasons or state a rule of law in support of his decision. The State now suggests that considering both that the witness had declined to participate by the time the locale was revealed and that the modus operandi here was identical to that described, it is readily inferable that [Lodowski] was describing the instant offense and not a Virginia crime, especially when the nexus in time is considered. If this was indeed a rational inference from the evidence, the judge did not so find on the record. The challenged testimony indicated that Lodowski was considering committing a crime similar to that committed at the Minimart. Whether he was in fact referring to the Minimart crime or to a different crime was for the determination of the trial judge. If the subject of the conversation was the Minimart crime, the testimony may have been admissible as a voluntary extrajudicial admission. Foster v. State, 297 Md. 191, 210, 464 A.2d 986 (1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 985, 79 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984); Johnson v. State, 38 Md. App. 306, 314, 381 A.2d 303 (1977), citing Md. Paper Products Co. v. Judson, 215 Md. 577, 590, 139 A.2d 219 (1958). If the conversation concerned a crime other than the Minimart, the question is whether it would be admissible under an exception to the rule that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal acts may not be introduced to prove that he is guilty of the offense for which he is on trial. See Straughn v. State, 297 Md. 329, 333, 465 A.2d 1166 (1983); Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 711-712, 415 A.2d 830 (1980); Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 473-474, 386 A.2d 757 (1978); Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669-670, 350 A.2d 680 (1976). Assuming that the crime discussed was not the Minimart offense, we point out that the record here is devoid of evidence that the crime was in fact committed. Furthermore, if it were committed, Lodowski's involvement in such an uncharged crime must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Cross 282 Md. at 478, 386 A.2d 757. Even upon such proof the trial judge may exclude such evidence if in his discretion the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighs its probative value. Straughn 297 Md. at 333-334, 465 A.2d 1166; Cross 282 Md. at 474, 386 A.2d 757. If, on retrial, Ferber's testimony is proffered and challenged, the trial judge should make, on evidence relevant to the issue, factual findings pursuant to procedures set out in Cross at 478 n. 2, 386 A.2d 757. These findings should be made in the light of the applicable law governing the admissibility of such evidence. And it would be better if he spread on the record the reasons for his ruling on the challenge.