Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0686 September Term, 2009

LIONEL LAMONT PETERSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Alpert, Paul E. (Retired, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

Opinion by Alpert, J.

Filed: December 28, 2010

Following a March 25, 2009 trial, appellant Lionel Lamont Peterson was convicted, by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, of second degree assault, second degree assault on a law enforcement officer, theft under $500, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, failure to return or remain at the scene of an accident, failure of a driver involved in an accident to render reasonable assistance, and failure of a driver involved in an accident to report an injury.1 On May 13, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to a total of three years in prison.2 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant presents three questions for our consideration: 1. Did the trial court fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 4-215? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it refused to allow Mr. Peterson to call character witnesses and when it refused to allow Mr. Peterson's brother to testify as an alibi witness? 3. Did the trial court commit plain error when it gave an incorrect and misleading instruction on second degree assault of a law enforcement officer? For the following reasons, finding neither error nor abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we affirm the judgments.

1

Appellant was acquitted of first degree assault.

The three year sentence was imposed on the assault upon a law enforcement officer charge. The simple assault charge was merged therein for sentencing purposes. The court imposed an 18 month concurrent sentence on the theft charge, a 12 month concurrent sentence on the failure to stop at the scene of an accident charge, and no sentence on the remaining charges.

2

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On July 13, 2008, off-duty Wicomico County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Robin Roberts and his wife went to a Wal-Mart store to purchase a toaster. As Roberts and his wife entered the store, they heard its anti-theft alarm, and Roberts observed an African-American male, later identified as appellant's brother, Howard Peterson, running through the lobby while pushing an empty shopping cart. Roberts watched the man exit the store and proceed to a black Cadillac; upon his arrival at the car, the man unfastened his pants and pulled out a large package of what Roberts believed to be stolen meat. Roberts walked to the car, identified himself as a police officer, and showed the man his credentials. He asked the man to retrieve what he had placed in the car and return to the Wal-Mart store. The man placed the large package of meat in the shopping cart and slammed the cart into Roberts. He then fled toward the Wal-Mart store.

While pushing the shopping cart away, Roberts noticed a second man, whom he identified at trial as appellant, walk around the Cadillac and get into the driver's seat. Placing his hand on the driver's side exterior mirror, Roberts again identified himself as a police officer and advised appellant to stop the vehicle. Appellant said nothing, but he backed the vehicle up, running over Roberts' foot. Roberts advised appellant he was under arrest, but appellant backed up farther and turned the steering wheel to the left, striking

2

Roberts on his left knee and knocking him to the ground.3 Without alerting police or rendering any assistance to Roberts, appellant exited the Wal-Mart parking lot in the Cadillac. Salisbury City Police Department Officer Tom Funk was dispatched to the Wal-Mart following a report that someone had struck a law enforcement officer with a vehicle. En route to the Wal-Mart store, Funk saw a vehicle fitting the broadcast description of the suspect vehicle driving in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed. Funk turned around and attempted to stop the vehicle; after reaching speeds of almost 100 miles per hour, Funk caught up to the vehicle and instigated a traffic stop. He observed two African-American males in the vehicle and saw one of them reach into the back seat and attempt to cover with a shirt a "very large pile of meat and shrimp." Upon approaching the driver's side of the vehicle and identifying himself as a police officer, Funk advised that he had stopped the vehicle because it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a suspected crime and because it had been traveling at a high rate of speed. Shortly thereafter, Officer John Dimare arrived at the scene, and the officers separated the two men and read them their Miranda4 rights.

Roberts' injuries, which persisted at least through the time of trial, included the crush injury to his left foot, a cut on his left knee, and pain in his back. His medical records were introduced into evidence at trial.
4

3

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3

Before Funk could ask the driver, whom he identified at trial as appellant, any questions, appellant told Funk that "he didn't hit no one." When Funk asked him what he meant by that, appellant told him that "some guy at Wal-Mart tried talking to him," but that appellant did not do anything wrong. Appellant told Funk that he believed the man at the Wal-Mart to be a police officer. After first denying to Funk that he had struck anyone with his vehicle, appellant admitted that Roberts "had made contact with his vehicle" and that he had seen Roberts fall. To Funk, the vehicle's passenger, appellant's brother, Howard Peterson, also admitted to having been at the Wal-Mart and to having had contact with a man he believed to be a police officer. While interviewing the brothers, Funk was alerted to a report of a theft or shoplifting incident from a Food Lion supermarket in Delmar. After Funk and Dimare reported their observation of packages of meat labeled with Food Lion stickers in the stopped vehicle, another officer transported Debbie Damico, a witness from Food Lion, to the location of the traffic stop; she identified appellant

Download Peterson v. State.pdf

Maryland Law