Opinion ID: 1927121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gary L. Harris

Text: Gary L. Harris was charged with battery and theft in connection with a June 11, 1995, purse snatching. Harris was tried by jury in Baltimore City Circuit Court and found guilty on both charges. A witness for the State, Robin Carponetto, testified that she observed the purse-snatching from the window of a nearby business establishment. Carponetto stated that she described the perpetrator to police as a black male, medium to dark complected with scars like keloids. She further informed the investigating officers that the perpetrator was wearing a black or navy hat, a dark blue T-shirt, and gray or faded pants. Both at trial and in a pre-trial photographic array, Carponetto identified Harris as the man whom she saw steal the victim's purse. Harris attacked the accuracy of Carponetto's identification, asserting that he was a victim of mistaken identity. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, Harris's counsel requested the same MICPEL pattern instruction on identification as was requested by counsel at petitioner Gunning's trial. The trial judge responded: Identification is an issue of fact. It involves no issue of law which the jury needs to consider. Give it to the Clerk so the record will show you requested it. But I never give that instruction. It is regrettable it found its way into the pattern jury instructions.    I mean, I disagree that it's an appropriate it's just not an appropriate instruction. I think it's exceedingly unfortunate that it found its way into a pattern jury instruction. The Court is required to instruct the jury as to the law on any issue that is raised by the evidence. Identification is purely a question of fact. (Emphasis added). The trial judge then delivered the jury instructions, omitting the instruction on identification requested by defense counsel. When the judge inquired as to whether there were any exceptions to the instructions, counsel for Harris stated: Your Honor, just the one I wanted the Court to ask.    That would be the one regarding the identification, the Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction. The jury found Harris guilty of battery and theft. The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences of 5 years imprisonment for the battery conviction, and 18 months imprisonment for the theft conviction. Harris appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals. This Court issued a writ of certiorari to the intermediate appellate court, however, prior to its review of the case.