 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. Maryland12/9/1993
The Defendant, David Davis, was found guilty of distribution of cocaine and heroin by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Following his sentencing, Davis appealed his conviction, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court. This Court granted certiorari. Davis contends that the circuit court erred in improperly restricting the scope of voir dire during jury selection and in permitting the State to make a missing witness argument to the jury during closing arguments. We find that the circuit court did not err in either respect and affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.
{PA}
Page 32} I.
On September 25, 1990, Officer Andrew Bratcher of the Baltimore City Police responded to a call regarding an individual selling narcotics in the 2100 block of Barclay Street. Shortly after his arrival, Officer Bratcher observed from his cruiser the Defendant, David Davis, carrying a small white bag in his hand. Davis placed the white bag beside a set of stairs and approached a car. Officer Bratcher then observed Davis hand the car's driver a small white object. Believing that he had just witnessed a drug transaction, Officer Bratcher exited his cruiser and instructed Davis to place his hands on the top of the purchaser's car. Davis fled, with Officer Bratcher giving pursuit. After apprehending Davis, Officer Bratcher returned to the location of the suspected sale and recovered the white bag that Davis had concealed along the side of the stairs. The white bag contained 48 capsules of cocaine and 18 wax-paper bags of heroin. Davis was subsequently charged with two counts of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute, and two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance.
Davis pled not guilty to the charges and requested a trial by jury before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. During voir dire, Judge David Ross asked the entire venire panel six questions and dismissed several prospective jurors on the basis of their replies. The six questions were as follows:
"1) . . . whether any of the prospective jurors had any knowledge or information about this particular case[;]
2) . . . whether any of the jurors knew a) the [Defendant], b) defense counsel, c) the assistant state's attorney, d) Officer Andrew Bratcher, the chief police investigator and only State's witness; or e) Mary Easley, a witness for the defense[;]
3) . . . whether any of the jurors 'has been or . . . has a close relative who has either been the victim of or has been charged with or convicted of a drug related crime[;]'
4) . . . whether any of the jurors is 'likely to give more or less weight to the testimony of a police officer merely because that person is a police officer[;]'
5) . . . whether any of the jurors 'knows of anything that would keep him or her from giving a fair and impartial verdict in this case[;]'
6) . . . whether any of the jurors 'knows of any reason why he or she should not sit on the jury in this case.'"
Davis v. State, 93 Md. App. 89, 92, 611 A.2d 1008, 1009 (1992) (quoting State v. Davis, No. 591032032, R. at 3-9 (May 29, 1991)).
Thereafter, Davis requested that the trial judge ask the jury panel "whether anyone on the jury has been a member or is a member of the law enforcement community or whether they have a close relative or friend who is such a member . . . ." Davis argued that the judge's prior "omnibus" questions, pertaining only to whether any member of the panel knew of any reas
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|