 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lovell v. State11/12/1997
dence of identity[.]"
Here Tfc. Plank had completed Maryland Uniform Complaints and Citations charging violations of §§ 21-801.1 (exceeding maximum speed) and 16-112(c) (failure to display license on demand) of the Motor Vehicle Law. Lovell did not produce a form of identification that enjoyed any official sponsorship by the federal or a state government. The employee identification card he did produce contained no home address, and thus, did not corroborate the home address in Elizabeth City, North Carolina that "Billups" gave to Tfc. Plank. The circumstances are elevated from mere suspicion to probable cause of a violation of § 26-202(a)(2)(i) of the Transportation Article by Lovell's having first written a name other than Charles Edward Billups, Jr. on the receipt for the citations and by his then having overwritten the name conforming to that on the employee identification card.
In any event, the following facts support a finding that Lovell killed in furtherance of an attempt to evade detention. Lovell knew that he had in his possession a .45 handgun and a large quantity of cocaine. Lovell also saw the backup police vehicle arrive, and he saw Trooper Lord and Tfc. Plank converse. It was perfectly apparent to Lovell that he was going to be further detained. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that, because Lovell could not risk any further inquiry into his identity, or a search of himself, or of the vehicle, he committed murder.
IV
One of the mitigating circumstances set forth in Maryland's death penalty statute is "the youthful age of the defendant at the time of the crime." Art. 27, § 413(g)(5). Lovell argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to give a supplemental instruction explaining that mitigating circumstance. The contention is based upon the facts set forth below.
In the portion of its charge that reviewed the mitigating circumstances listed in § 413(g), the circuit court said simply: "Mitigating circumstance number 5 is the youthful age of the Defendant at the time the crime." Lovell did not except to that instruction.
The jury began deliberations at 3:44 p.m. and, shortly before 8:00 p.m. that same day, it sent the following note to the trial judge:
"Section III [of the verdict form], number 5 uses the term 'youthful age'.
"The jury wants to know if there is any further definition for this term or guidance the court can give the jury, relative to this term."
In discussing the note with counsel, the court said:
"There are, I would suggest, at least two possible answers. The first and most tempting is no. If one overcomes the temptation to just say no, then one might look to the case of Johnson v. State at 303 Md. 487[, 495 A.2d 1], a somewhat old case, a 1985 case. That stated that in effect youthful age, the mitigating factor of youthful age is not measured by a chronological standard, but rather a prior criminal conduct, home environment, marital status, degree of maturity, alcohol and drug abuse among others are all factors relevant to the concept of youthful age. I will hear from counsel. ... What would the State's request be for the Court to respond to the jury in the answer to their question[?]
....
"[THE STATE]: We would prefer your first answer.
"THE COURT: Okay.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, in addition to the language you found in Johnson, there is another piece of law that speaks as well."
(Emphasis added). Defense counsel referred to the fact that the legislature had amended the statute to exclude from consi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|