Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF Opinion by Davis, J. SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Filed: December 5, 2001 No. 186 September Term, 2001

GARY EDWARD LAMB

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Davis, Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., JJ.

Appellant Gary Edward Lamb was charged with disorderly conduct, second degree assault, intentionally and knowingly obstructing performance and of hindering his duties, a police officer in the to lawful the

willfully

failing

obey

reasonable and lawful order of a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. Appellant was tried in the Circuit Court for After

Prince George's County on December 11-12, 2000 by a jury.

the trial court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal by appellant's counsel as to the disorderly conduct count,

appellant was charges.

convicted by the jury on the remaining four

On February 2, 2001, appellant was sentenced to five years' incarceration, with all but two years suspended, for

intentionally and knowingly obstructing and hindering a police officer in the lawful performance of his duties, ninety days' incarceration for willfully failing to obey the reasonable and lawful order of a law enforcement officer, and five years' incarceration, with all but two years suspended, for resisting arrest. All of the sentences were ordered to be served

concurrently and the court merged the second degree assault conviction into the resisting arrest conviction. Appellant files this timely appeal and presents three issues for our review, which we restate as follows: I. Does the fact that a law enforcement officer attempted to effect an unlawful

- 2 arrest preclude appellant's conviction for hindering and obstructing the officer in the performance of his duties and were appellant's responses to the officer's actions legally cognizable as proper defenses and the related charges? II. Did the trial court err in refusing to either permit cross-examination of the arresting officer or instruct the jury as to the legality of the juvenile arrests that appellant was alleged to have hindered?

III. Did the prosecutor deprive appellant of a fair trial by making inflammatory comments during the closing argument in violation of an order in limine? We conclude that the record is insufficient to answer appellant's first question and we answer his second question in the affirmative. We hold that he failed to preserve the third

issue for our review, but address the issue for guidance of the lower court on remand. We therefore reverse the judgments of

the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the evening of December 31, 1999, Officer Paul Corridean stopped his police cruiser in front of 3702 Otis Street in Mount Rainier, Maryland, the home of Ralph and Rhea Quesenberry,

- 3 parents of appellant, and confronted two juveniles sitting on the curb in front of the house. At trial, the two juveniles were identified as appellant's half-brother and another juvenile ("T.F."); the two testified on behalf of appellant at trial. According to Officer Corridean,

the two juveniles had open containers of alcohol between their feet as they sat on the curb. and appellant's brother were "T.F.," however, denied that he drinking anything. Officer

Corridean then ordered the two juveniles to his police cruiser and proceeded to take the two into custody when appellant

arrived at the scene.

The facts as gleaned from the testimony

of each party, from this point forward, differ sharply. According to Officer Corridean, he attempted to handcuff the juveniles when appellant came from behind and pushed the officer hard on the right shoulder and asked, "What the fuck are you doing to my brother?" The officer then turned and ordered

appellant to back up because the juveniles were under arrest at which point appellant stepped back in his stepfather's yard. Once in the yard, appellant "drew a line right at [sic] where the grass and the sidewalk meet" and said, "now I'm in my yard, motherfucker, or something to that effect." When appellant first stepped back, Officer Corridean had not yet decided to arrest appellant. After appellant drew the

- 4 imaginary line, Officer Corridean "instructed him a second time" to back away and appellant then made "some obscene gesture." Officer Corridean then told appellant that he was under arrest and then reached out to grab appellant. Appellant then

"assaulted [Officer Corridean] a second time" by "pushing off [Officer Corridean's] left hand." At that point, Officer

Corridean "deployed [his] department pepper spray," at which time appellant began running through the yard. After spraying appellant with the pepper spray, Officer Corridean called for back-up and pursued appellant to the front steps of the house, where a "second struggle" ensued, during which appellant punched him "three or four times." Officer

Corridean responded to appellant's punches with a second shot of pepper spray. police cruiser. By this time, both juveniles had fled from the After deploying pepper spray a second time, one

of the juveniles appeared and grabbed appellant and guided him around the left side of the house to the back entrance. Shortly thereafter, when back-up forces had arrived on the scene, the officers saw appellant inside the house through the windows. The officers stood outside the house and yelled for After Officer

appellant to come outside and turn himself in.

Corridean removed his canine from the cruiser and gave two warnings for appellant to come out of the house, appellant "came

- 5 down the stairs and surrendered, and . . . was taken into custody." Testimony by appellant and his witnesses

Download Lamb v. State.pdf

Maryland Law