Preview:

Robert Grier v. State of Maryland, No. 91, September Term, 1997 APPEAL & ERROR - PRESERVATION - When a question would elicit no admissible evidence, a general objection is sufficient to preserve the issue of admissibility for appeal. EVIDENCE--With the exception of circumstances constituting a "tacit admission," ordinarily a defendant's failure to approach the police with his or her account prior to arrest lacks probative value, and is inadmissible as substantive evidence.

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case # 295349030 296205001, 02 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 91 September Term, 1997 _______________________________________

ROBERT GRIER v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Cathell JJ. ________________________________________

Opinion by Raker, J. ________________________________________

Filed: September 23, 1998

Petitioner John Grier was convicted before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with the crimes of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, mayhem with intent to disfigure, and other related offenses. At trial, the State elicited evidence of Petitioner's post-arrest silence, and Petitioner entered a general objection. We consider three issues in this case. First, we consider whether a general objection to the admission of evidence of Petitioner's post-arrest silence was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. Second, we consider whether evidence of Petitioner's post-arrest silence was admissible as "fair response" to the defense theory of the case. Finally, if we find error, was the admission of evidence of Petitioner's post-arrest silence harmless error. We shall hold that because the State's questions did not generate any admissible evidence, a general objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. Petitioner's post-arrest silence was not admissible as "fair response." Finally, the trial court's error admitting evidence of post-arrest silence was not harmless. Accordingly, we shall reverse the Court of Special Appeals.

I. While on patrol, two Baltimore City police officers observed Robert Grier (Petitioner) and Carl Mack struggling with each other in the middle of the street. While the officers were turning their vehicle around, Grier and Mack stopped struggling, and Grier started to walk away. Grier was carrying a camera case. The officers noticed that Mack had

2 a deep cut on his left hand, and that he was hysterical. Officer Farley remained on the scene and spoke with Mack, who told the officer that Grier had attacked him and stolen his backpack. Officer Purtell followed Grier. Officer Purtell stayed 20 feet behind Grier both for safety reasons and because he did not want to approach Petitioner "right off the bat" until he "knew what was going on." After calling an ambulance for Mack, Officer Farley also followed in pursuit of Grier. Officer Farley observed Grier walk into a dead-end alley and throw something onto a porch. As Grier came out of the alley, the officers "got him and put him on the ground and then took him into custody." Grier was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He was convicted of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 1997 Supp.) Article 27,

Download Grier v. State.pdf

Maryland Law