Thursday, March 28, 2013

Maryland appeals court reverses conviction due to lay witness testimony connecting defendant to crime scene with CSLI

In a recent Maryland case, the Court of Special Appeals found that it was improper for the trial court to use lay testimony from a detective to suggest that the defendant's cell phone was in close proximity to the location of the crime. Because the detective was not presented as an expert witness on the technology, the testimony was improper, and the conviction was reversed and remanded. Payne v. State, No. 2156 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013).

The defendant had been charged and convicted of first-degree felony murder. At trial, the detective testified as to how he was able to use call records to find the cell tower in which the defendant's phone was connected at the time of the call. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the detective was "offering expert testimony without a proper foundation." The detective was allowed to testify without the proper foundation.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the cell site location information should not have been allowed from a lay witness. The state countered, "there was no 'opinion' testimony, lay or otherwise, in this case and, even if it did constitute opinion testimony, there was no need for the State to produce an expert to testify regarding the facts relating to appellants' cell phone records."

Ultimately, here's what caused the appeals court to take issue with the testimony:

Subsequent to the court's ruling, Detective Edwards testified that a telephone call from Bond's cell phone registered off of a cellular tower "at a latitude and longitude of 39.350854 by negative 76.696565 located on Menlo Drive" which was approximately one and one half to two miles away from the crime scene at approximately the time when the crime occurred. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on August 27, 2007, another call had been placed from Bond's cell phone registering off of a cellular tower at latitude and longitude 39.34364 by negative 76.72851, a location known as Balmoral Towers, located approximately one mile from the crime scene. Over objection, Detective Edwards then identified the map which has been generated as a mapping program that depicted the aforesaid locations. Finally, Detective Edwards testified that Paynes' cellular-phone activated off of one of the towers located in proximity to the crime scene at 10:02 a.m. on August 26, 2007.
Because the testimony was improperly allowed by a lay witness, it was in error. The court found the testimony to be "critical," and thus reversed and remanded the case.

0 comments:

Post a Comment