Court Opinion

ID: 9774343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:17:09.904018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:06.726027
License: Public Domain

PAUL E. ALPERT, J. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
dissenting.
Respectfully, I disagree with my learned colleagues wherein they would approve the able and experienced trial judge’s refusal to inquire whether any member of the jury panel had strong feelings concerning motor vehicle theft “that would render the juror unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.”
I would think that most people would become very upset to find that their motor vehicle was stolen. Automobile theft is rampant in the United States in general, and Baltimore City in particular.
Appellant’s footnote 4 presents supportive and illustrative specifics:
“According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2008, in Baltimore City there were 5,508 motor vehicle thefts reported in *1882008. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimated that Baltimore City’s population is 634,549.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report (2009), http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08 aprelim/table_4il-mo.html (Last visited June 23, 2009).
This represents approximately 868 motor vehicle theft reports per every 100,000 people. Such numbers suggest that residents of Baltimore City may indeed harbor strong opinions about motor vehicle theft.
By way of comparison, there were 9058 motor vehicle theft reports in 2008 in Philadelphia, a city of 1,441,117.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report (2009), http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08 aprelim/table_4ok-wi.html (Last visited June 23, 2009).
This represents approximately 639 motor vehicle theft reports per every 100,000 people.”
The following article published October 2007 by Newshound sets out the sheer magnitude of the stolen car epidemic:
Crime is an issue throughout the United States. The headlines might be grabbed by acts of violence such as murder, rape, shootings, and kidnapping but they aren’t as common as another crime. The frequency of vehicle theft may amaze many of you. Despite the fact that car thefts dropped for the third consecutive year, a car is stolen in the United States every 26.4 seconds. This fact was revealed in a recent press release by the National Insurance Crime Bureau.
There were 1,192,809 motor vehicles stolen last year. This was 42,417 vehicles fewer than the amount stolen in 2005 though, and marked the third annual decrease in a row. The FBI estimates the average value of a stolen vehicle at $6,649, which when multiplied by the number of stolen vehicles comes to a grand total of $7.9 billion dollars of lost vehicles in 2006. Despite the high value of the loss, the trend is good news for car owners.
“The decrease in vehicle thefts is certainly welcome news to law enforcement, the insurance industry and vehicle *189owners nationwide,” said Robert M. Bryant, who is the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s President and CEO. “At NICB, we have been providing the latest technology in auto theft detection and recovery equipment to law enforcement agencies from California to Florida,” continued Bryant.
Out of the ten most stolen vehicles, only one of them is from the twenty first century. That car is the 2005 Dodge Ram Pickup truck, and is the fifth most stolen automotive vehicle. The most popular vehicle that thieves seek is the 1995 Honda Civic, with the second most popular being the 1991 Honda. Another import comes in at the number three spot in the form of the 1989 Toyota Camry. All those top three most stolen vehicles are imports. The first American car is the 1997 Ford F-150 Series Pickup which ranks just above the 2005 Dodge Ram Pickup on the list.
Not all the news is good news for vehicle owners about trends. Despite the third straight year in reductions in the number of vehicles stolen, they were recovered less often last year. Only 59% of stolen vehicles were recovered last year, which is the lowest in over a decade according to the press release.
The Appellant contends that “The General Questions Asked of the Venire Panel were Not Reasonably Calculated to Uncover Bias Specific to that Crime for Which Appellant was Charged.” I agree with that argument and would grant Appellant a new trial.