Baltimore double homicide conviction upheld by MD Supreme Court

The Maryland Supreme Court this week upheld a Baltimore man’s conviction for a 2021 double-homicide, ruling that the verdict wasn’t affected by the judge’s refusal to provide a requested jury instruction.

The court upheld on Monday the voluntary manslaughter conviction of Montay Shuler, who said he shot Brian Palmer and Darrin Stewart in defense of himself and a friend in August 2021 during a fight over a drug deal.

A jury in Baltimore City Circuit Court in January 2024 declined to convict Shuler of first- and second-degree murder, but it did find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter, armed robbery and gun charges. He was sentenced to 70 years in prison.

At trial, prosecutors sought to question Shuler’s credibility by introducing evidence of a statement he made in police custody, before he was represented by an attorney. They argued the statement, in which Shuler said he didn’t know anything about the shooting and didn’t own a gun, was inconsistent with his later testimony that he acted in self-defense. Shuler acknowledged his right to an attorney and to remain silent before he made the statement.

He requested that the jury be instructed on the “voluntariness” of his statement in police custody. Such an instruction prompts a jury to consider whether a statement was made freely or was the result of police coercion. The judge declined the request.

The state’s high court agreed with the Appellate Court of Maryland, ruling that Shuler failed to cross the low bar of producing “some evidence” that his statement was involuntary and that the circuit judge was not wrong to decline the jury instruction.

Justice Brynja Booth wrote that the fact that Shuler was acquitted of murder shows that he wasn’t harmed by the lack of the jury instruction.

“The jury acquitted Mr. Shuler of all the murder charges, and convicted him of two counts of voluntary manslaughter, which suggests that, notwithstanding Mr. Shuler’s impeachment with his prior statement, the jury credited Mr. Shuler’s testimony about self-defense,” Booth wrote. “Mr. Shuler’s counsel repeatedly called for such a verdict in his closing argument.”

The Maryland Office of the Public Defender, which represented Shuler, declined to comment. Shuler was also represented by attorneys from Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. The Maryland Office of the Attorney General, which represented the state, declined to comment.

Justice Shirley Watts dissented in part, writing that he should have been offered the jury instruction and that the lack of it was far from harmless.

“Had the jury believed Mr. Shuler’s testimony in its entirety, Mr. Shuler may have been exonerated of all of the murder charges, including manslaughter,” Watts wrote. “The admission of Mr. Shuler’s statement severely undermined his credibility and cannot be said to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In a five-sentence opinion, Justice Jonathan Biran wrote that there was “some evidence” that the statement was involuntary but agreed with the majority that the refusal to provide the jury instruction was harmless.