Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

TERRY ADDISON v. STATE OF MARYLAND, JONATHAN WOODARD v. STATE of MARYLAND

Criminal procedure — Juror misconduct — Motion for mistrial

Two groups of men engaged in a shootout on November 20, 2012, on Greenmount Avenue in Baltimore City causing the death of Daniel Pearson and serious injury to Dajuan Clinkscale and James Woodfalk. Appellants Terry Addison and Jonathan Woodard were prosecuted jointly in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for charges arising out of the shooting. Following a seven day jury trial, on July 24, 2014, Mr. Addison was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of use of a handgun in a crime of violence . Mr. Woodard was also convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of use of a handgun in a crime of violence. The jury was polled and hearkened, and all jurors affirmed the verdicts as announced by their foreperson.

On September 10, 2014, Mr. Addison was sentenced to a total of life plus 20 years of incarceration. On October 27, 2014, Mr. Woodard was sentenced to a total of life plus 20 years of incarceration.

Both Appellants now challenge, not the evidence presented at trial or its sufficiency, but the fairness and integrity of the trial following a report by one juror that another juror made an inappropriate comment prior to the close of evidence. Appellants noted timely appeals, and on April 2, 2015, this Court ordered that those appeals be consolidated.

Appellant Woodard presents the following question: Did the court abuse its discretion in (a) denying appellant’s mistrial motion after one juror reported that another juror had said that one of the defendant s will be going to jail for the rest of his life and/or (b) failing to investigate various troubling statements made by jurors during the individualized voir dire?

Appellant Addison presents the following question: Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial or, in the alternative, to strike Juror Number 1 from the jury.

Read the opinion here: