Opinion ID: 2092690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony by Sergeant Wilson

Text: Sergeant Laron Wilson, Officer McGriff's immediate supervisor on the night of the event, went to the scene upon the report of the shooting. In a pre-trial deposition, he recalled that in a post-event critique that he had with various squad members, not including McGriff, he pointed out that an alternative would have been to secure the scene and wait for additional officers and a canine unit and that in light of the fact that it came out as seven people inside the apartment and in light of the fact that it came out shots fired, seven against two is not very good odds. When asked about his personal experiences in similar situations, Sergeant Wilson said that [s]ometimes I've gone forward. It depends on what the specific situation is, adding that there's no general order that specifically covers this. He continued, in his deposition, that the only relevant general order was that dealing with the use of deadly force and that Officer McGriff acted in accordance with the general order. Sergeant Wilson's views first surfaced at trial during the testimony of Officer McGriff. Petitioner indicated an intent to ask McGriff on cross-examination whether he agreed with Sergeant Wilson that odds of seven against two are not good odds. Wilson had not yet testified, and neither his deposition nor any other report of his was in evidence. The court sustained an objection on the ground of hearsay. Wilson was later called as a fact witness by McGriff. The substance of his testimony was his observation of McGriff, at the scene, as being shaken, and recounting McGriff's statement to him that McGriff thought the vacuum cleaner pipe was a shotgun and I thought I was done. Petitioner indicated an intent to cross-examine Sergeant Wilson about the training police officers get with regard to the use of deadly force, and McGriff objected. The court sustained the objection on the dual grounds that such an examination would violate the in limine ruling and that it would exceed the scope of direct examination. Petitioner then asked Wilson whether McGriff's actions were reasonable. In defending against McGriff's objection, petitioner referenced Wilson's deposition testimony that seven against two is not good odds and that an alternative would have been to secure the scene and await additional units. The court sustained the objection on the ground that the inquiry exceeded the scope of direct examination. At the conclusion of the defense case-in-chief, which ended with Sergeant Wilson's brief testimony, petitioner called Wilson as a rebuttal witness and offered to the court that Wilson would testify that police officers are trained to use deadly force only as a last resort and to wait for a sufficient number of officers to handle situations without undue force. He also indicated an intent to question Sergeant Wilson as to whether there were reasonable alternatives besides entering the building that evening. The court sustained McGriff's objection on the dual grounds that the proffered testimony would violate the in limine ruling and was not proper rebuttal, in that it did not purport or serve to rebut any new matter introduced by the defense. Apart from whether the in limine ruling was correct, which we shall consider below, these evidentiary rulings were valid on the more technical grounds relied upon by the court. Sergeant Wilson's out-of-court statement, recounted in his deposition, that two against seven is not good odds was not in evidence when petitioner sought to have McGriff confirm it through cross-examination; petitioner was indirectly offering that out-of-court statement for its truth which, under the hearsay rule, he is not permitted to do. The proposed cross-examination of Sergeant Wilson was properly disallowed because it exceeded the scope of direct examination, and that same inquiry was impermissible on rebuttal because it did not tend or purport to rebut any new matter introduced by McGriff. Those calls were within the discretion accorded to a trial court. Smallwood v. State, 320 Md. 300, 307, 577 A.2d 356, 359 (1990); Huffington v. State, 295 Md. 1, 14, 452 A.2d 1211, 1217 (1982).