Preview:

HEADNOTE:

Wilson v. State, No. 136, September Term, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW; "IMPERFECT" SELF-DEFENSE; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO AN "IMPERFECT" SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION: Although Petitioner's "Kill or be killed" claim, made during a post-arrest interview, was (in the words of Dykes v. State, 319 Md. at 217) "overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary," that assertion was legally sufficient to entitle Petitioner to a jury instruction on "imperfect" self-defense.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 136 September Term, 2010

ANTAJUAN LAWNTEE WILSON v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene *Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Murphy, J.

Filed: October 25, 2011 *Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

In the Circuit Court for Howard County, a jury convicted Antajuan Lawntee Wilson, Petitioner, of first degree murder and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Petitioner concedes that the State's evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses on April 9, 2008, but argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the Circuit Court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the (partial) defenses of "imperfect self defense" and the "rule of provocation." In Wilson v. State of Maryland, 195 Md. App. 647, 7 A.3d 197 (2010), the Court of Special Appeals rejected those arguments and affirmed the judgments of conviction. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, in which he presented this Court with two questions: 1. Did the lower courts err in modifying and/or rejecting the "some evidence" standard established by this Court in Dykes [v. State, 319 Md. 206, 571 A.2d 1251 (1990)], by holding that the "some evidence" requirement is not satisfied by evidence which the lower courts deem unworthy of belief? 2. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the mitigation defenses of hot blooded response to adequate provocation and imperfect self defense? For the reasons that follow, we answer "no" to Petitioner's second question, but "yes" to Petitioner's first question. We shall therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. Background As the Court of Special Appeals stated: At approximately 11:00 A.M. on the morning of April 9, 2008, in an area known as Bryant Woods in Columbia, the appellant shot Brian Adams four times.

Adams died of "multiple gunshot wounds." The appellant was indisputably the homicidal agent. The only issue before us is whether the evidence generated at least the reasonable possibility that the appellant, because of extenuating circumstances, may have been guilty only of manslaughter rather than of murder. 195 Md. App. at 656, 7 A.3d at 202. The confrontation that ended with the fatal shooting occurred a short time after Petitioner had initially encountered the victim and two of the victim's friends at a gas station, where one of the victim's friends said to Petitioner, "We'll fuck you up," and, "Fuck, we could beat you up right now." As to what occurred thereafter, the State's brief "accepts" the following statements in Petitioner's brief: Mr. Wilson returned to his grandmother's home located several minutes away. He promptly tried to reach his cousin, "Chris," by phone, because he had been "kind of intimidate[d]" by the encounter at the Crown Station. When there was no answer, Petitioner decided to walk to Chris's home "on the other side in Oakland Mills." Concerned that he might run into the trio, he changed his clothes so that he would not be recognized and took a steak knife from the kitchen "for backup." Mr. Wilson expressly stated that he had not gone out for the purpose of finding the trio, but recognized that an encounter was possible. He left his house and started walking towards his cousin's home. On his way, he saw the three youths. He stated that when they noticed him "they threw their hands up," which Petitioner interpreted as meaning that they "wanna fight." In discussing his intent as he approached the group, he testified as follows: Q. Was it your intention to start something? A. Not really. Really it was my intention to
2

squash it. Q. What does that mean? A. Squash it means, like, come to an agreement. Q. Okay. And did you have a thought about how you were [sic] come the [sic] that kind of agreement? A. Talk to him, you know what I mean, tell him that I'm not from around here, you know what I'm saying, I just moved out here, you know what I'm saying, I'm not too familiar with the area. Q. Okay, Well, why did you bring a knife? A. Because in case they got aggressive. As Mr. Wilson walked toward the youths, Adams stepped toward Wilson with his hand in his pocket. Adams' "homeboys" remained about two feet behind him. Mr. Wilson acknowledged being "nervous" and kept his hand on the knife in his pocket. Adams asked what he had in his pocket. Mr. Wilson asked the same. Mr. Wilson stated that they went "back and forth," until Adams pulled out a gun, looked at Petitioner and "smiled." Asserting that he was "scared," Mr. Wilson "grabbed" for Adams' weapon and was able to pull it away from him. In approximately fifteen seconds, Mr. Wilson fired four shots at Adams and then fled, dropping the gun as he ran. The police subsequently created a "person wanted" flier and began a canvass of the area. Three days later, on the morning of April 12th, Detective Clay Davis and Detective Vickie Shaffer knocked at the door of the residence at 10848 Green Mountain Circle. Mr. Wilson answered the door. They handed him the flier and told him that they were investigating a homicide. Mr. Wilson's hands were noted to shake as he took the flier. He denied any knowledge of the incident. After the officers left, Mr. Wilson called his mother in
3

Georgia and told her that he had "got into it with some dudes." She advised him to contact the police. He did so, and Detectives Davis and Shaffer subsequently returned to Wilson's residence at approximately 11:30-11:45 a.m. In a recorded interview, Mr. Wilson acknowledged having been at the Crown station to purchase cigarettes, and stated that he later heard shots fired, but denied any knowledge of the shooting. At 3:30 p.m. that same afternoon, a team of officers returned to Mr. Wilson's home and placed him under arrest. He was transported to the Northern District Station. Petitioner again met with Detective Davis and Detective Shaffer at approximately 8:00 p.m. After waiving his Miranda rights, he provided a second statement which was similar in content to the first. At 9:00 p.m. Mr. Wilson was transported by Sergeant Justin Baker to Central Booking. While awaiting processing, Petitioner made several inquires to Baker, including whether he had to admit committing the act in order to claim self-defense. The sergeant responded, "not necessarily... that is why it is called a defense." Mr. Wilson requested another meeting with Detectives Davis and Shaffer. He stated that he had come to recognize the severity of the situation and decided that it was necessary that the detectives hear his side of the story. Mr. Wilson was transported back to Northern District where he met with the two detectives at 11:09 p.m. In this third interview, Mr. Wilson stated that he had changed his clothes before leaving the house, "cause I figured they was gonna look for somebody in my, you what I'm saying, that had my clothes on." He further told the police that when he saw the three youths, they "flagged [him] down." He admitted that he shot Adams, but repeatedly asserted that he was "shook" when Adams pulled out the gun and that he "froze" when Adams aimed it at him and smiled. Petitioner asserted, "I ain't never been that scared in my life." He continued[,] I was shook. Like I said, when he pulled his out, I was shook. Honest. Turned like this, smiled.
4

And I ain't his bitch ass. I mean, shit, Kill or be killed. You know what I'm saying? What you gonna do if somebody pulled a gun on you? Man. Mr. Wilson was adamant that he had no intention to kill anyone, adding, I'm not no killer... I'm not no murderer... Really, I ain't even want to fight... and I'm saying it all happened so fast, man. During the interview, the nineteen year old attempted to respond to the numerous scenarios proposed by the police. He acquiesced in their assertion that he had been upset because he had been disrespected, but denied the allegation that "[Adams] punked you and you got mad; and you shot him." Mr. Wilson rejoined, "That ain't how it went down..." At one point, Detective Shaffer asserted: "[I]t almost seems as though you came in here to set us up for self defense. And maybe, maybe you were defending yourself..." (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner's trial counsel requested that the Circuit Court instruct the jury on the partial defenses of imperfect self defense and hot blooded response to lawfully adequate provocation. The Circuit Court's denial of those requests was accompanied by the following on-the-record analysis: Mr. Wilson's response to that [first confrontation] was to go home and at that moment he was very deliberative, he thought through what he intended to do. First he called for his cousin for backup, which suggests to me that Mr. Wilson was looking to take care of business immediately, because you can't walk around with your cousin for the rest of your life. And that's true because Mr. Wilson said he's not the kind to run, he's gonna take care of it. He put on

Download Wilson v. State.pdf

Maryland Law