Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Nos. 1354, 1355 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997 _______________________________

ARNOLD BRAXTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND _______________________________ Hollander, Byrnes, Adkins, JJ. ______________________________ Opinion by Hollander, J. ______________________________ Filed: November 6, 1998

On April 30, 1996, Mark Williams and Charles Carroll were robbed in Baltimore City by two men; one robber brandished a .25 caliber handgun and the other wielded a .38 caliber weapon. After

the robbers fled the scene, the victims informed a police officer of what had occurred. Later that evening, the police apprehended

the robber who had allegedly carried the .38 caliber weapon. Further investigation led the police to suspect that Arnold

Braxton, appellant, was the robber who had used the .25 caliber firearm. Subsequently, Detective Alvin Gwynn obtained Braxton's

photograph and included it in a photo array that he displayed to Mr. Williams. After the victim identified appellant as one of the

robbers, the detective obtained appellant's address from his arrest record, and then procured a search warrant for that address: Apartment 203, 4310 Seminole Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Several

officers joined Detective Gwynn in executing the search warrant; the search led to the discovery of a .25 caliber weapon matching the description of one of the guns used in the robbery. Ballistics

tests also linked the weapon to the murder of Melvin Alexander, Jr., whose body was found in his car on April 26, 1996.

Consequently, appellant was charged with the armed robbery of Mr. Williams and Mr. Carroll, as well as the murder of Mr. Alexander.1 The legality of the search warrant issued for appellant's Based on the ballistics tests, appellant was actually charged with three unrelated murders. The State unsuccessfully sought to join for trial all three murder cases and the robbery case; the other two murder cases are not at issue here.
1

residence was a central issue below, as it is here.

At a hearing

held prior to the murder trial, the court (Alpert, J.) denied appellant's motion to suppress the fruits of the search.

Thereafter, at two successive jury trials commencing in July 1997 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant was convicted of the first degree murder of Mr. Alexander ("Trial I" or the "murder trial"), the armed robbery of Mr. Williams and Mr. Carroll ("Trial II" or the "robbery trial"), and related offenses.2 At a joint

sentencing hearing held on September 3, 1997, the court sentenced twenty-one year old Arnold Braxton to a total of life imprisonment plus 20 years.3 Appellant timely noted his appeal in each case. Although

these appeals present a host of unrelated questions, we shall Specifically, at the murder trial, the jury found appellant guilty of the following: first degree murder; unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence; and unlawful wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun. In connection with the robbery trial, the jury convicted Braxton of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. In particular, the court imposed the following sentences: life imprisonment for first degree murder; a consecutive sentence of ten years (the first five without parole) for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony; twenty years, consecutive to the life sentence, for the armed robbery of Mr. Carroll; ten years (the first five without parole), for the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, concurrent with the prior twenty year sentence; twenty years for the armed robbery of Mr. Williams, consecutive to the life sentence but concurrent with the sentence for the armed robbery of Mr. Carroll; and ten years (the first five without parole) for the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, concurrent with the sentence for the armed robbery of Mr. Williams. 2
3 2

consider the appeals together, because they present identical challenges to the search warrant.4 Braxton presents the following

questions for our consideration, which we have condensed and reformulated: I. With respect to Trial I and Trial II, did the court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered during the execution of the search warrant issued for appellant's residence? A. B. Was the search warrant supported by probable cause? Even if the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, does the good faith exception apply? Was the affidavit tainted due to police misrepresentation regarding the witness's identification in the photo array?

C.

II.

In Trial I, did the court err in permitting an expert witness to testify that the gun admitted into evidence met the statutory definition of a handgun under Md. Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27

Download Braxton v. State.pdf

Maryland Law