MD Appellate Court orders new trial in Montgomery County murder case

Listen to this article

The Maryland Appellate Court ordered a new trial in a Montgomery County murder case, ruling that the lower court should have instructed the jury on the defense of others.

The court sided with Malik Dujuan Jefferson, who was convicted of second-degree murder and other offenses for a 2022 shooting in Rockville characterized as a drug deal gone wrong. Jefferson confessed to shooting the victim, Jose Osvaldo Genao Romero, but claimed that he did so in order to protect his friend, Jackson Garcia, who had been fighting Genao.

The decision marks the second Montgomery County murder conviction overturned in the past year because the jury was not instructed on the perfect or imperfect defense of others. In July, the Maryland Supreme Court ordered a new trial for a man convicted of another Rockville murder in 2022.

Jefferson, who in May 2024 was sentenced to 50 years in prison for the shooting, argued that the jury should have been instructed on the perfect and imperfect defense of others. He claimed that he feared Genao would kill Garcia, and only intervened when the fight “was getting tragic.”

The state conceded that a defense-of-others instruction was required, but argued the omission was harmless because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that neither Jefferson nor Garcia instigated the fight.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court agreed with the state, reasoning that Garcia and Genao were engaged in mutual combat and that Garcia started it.

The Maryland Appellate Court on Jan. 29 vacated the conviction, ruling that Jefferson introduced “some evidence” that he was acting in Garcia’s defense, and thus that the defense-of-others jury instruction was warranted and its omission was not harmless.

Appellate Judge Stuart Berger wrote that there is a “low bar” for such an instruction, and found that Jefferson offered at least “some evidence.” He was joined in the opinion by Appellate Court Chief Judge E. Gregory Wells and retired Appellate Court Judge Glenn Harrell Jr., who was specially assigned.

Berger wrote that Jefferson cleared that low bar by telling police he was trying to defend Garcia, that Genao had a large knife and was much bigger than Garcia, and that he believed Garcia may be killed.

“Ultimately, it was for the jury — not the trial court — to determine whether to credit Jefferson’s version of events,” Berger wrote.

“Whether Jefferson’s statements were contradicted by other evidence is irrelevant. If the jury believed Jefferson’s version of events, it could have concluded that Genao, not Garcia, was the initial aggressor. By refusing to give the defense of others instruction, the trial court usurped the jury’s role as factfinder and instead resolved all factual inferences in favor of the State.”

That omission was not harmless, Berger wrote, in part because the jury sent the judge two notes asking about similar issues. The jury first asked if there were “any lesser homicide charges available,” and later asked “is homicide/killing someone in defense of another person’s life considered murder on its own?”

“Both notes indicate that the omission of the requested defense of others instruction may well have affected the jury’s verdict,” Berger wrote. “We, therefore, conclude that the trial court’s refusal to give the requested defense of others instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office declined to comment, noting that the case was now pre-trial. The Maryland Office of the Attorney General, which represented the state on appeal, also declined to comment. The Office of the Public Defender, which represented Jefferson, did not respond to a request for comment.

Last July, the Maryland Supreme Court overturned another conviction stemming from a 2022 murder in Rockville. The court ordered a new trial for Sergey Danshin, who denied shooting the victim, but said he was holding a woman by the hair and wielding a machete. The Appellate Court denied Danshin’s first appeal, saying the trial court correctly refused the defense-of-others instruction because he denied the shooting. If he said he wasn’t the shooter, the court argued, he couldn’t have shot the man to protect the woman.

In Danshin’s case, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled the instruction was still warranted, reiterating a 1990 decision that set a very low bar.

“It calls for no more than what it says — ‘some,’ as that word is understood in common, everyday usage,” the state’s high court wrote. “The source of the evidence is immaterial; it may emanate solely from the defendant. It is of no matter that the [defense of others] claim is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.”