Quick Summary
Teretha McNeil Baker (defendant) was convicted for first-degree murder and robbery but sought to challenge her conviction on appeal. The crux of her argument rested on the trial court’s refusal to allow her counsel to use a police report for refreshing a witness’s memory, which might have led to her exoneration.
The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court misapplied evidence law by not permitting the use of the report for Present Recollection Revived.
Facts of the Case
Teretha McNeil Baker (defendant) was tried and convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. A key piece of evidence against her was the testimony of Officer Bolton, who relayed the victim’s identification of his attackers.
During trial, Baker attempted to introduce testimony that the victim, upon confronting Baker while in police custody, had stated she was not one of his assailants. Officer Bolton, who was present during this confrontation, could not recall the event.
Baker’s counsel sought to refresh Bolton’s memory using a police report written by another officer, which documented the victim’s exculpatory statement. The trial court denied the use of this report for memory refreshment, as it was not authored by Bolton.
Procedural History
- Baker was charged and convicted of first-degree murder and robbery in a Baltimore City jury trial.
- During the trial, Baker’s counsel attempted to refresh the memory of a witness using a police report not authored by the witness. The trial court denied this attempt.
- Baker appealed the conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred in not allowing her to use the police report to refresh the witness’s memory.
- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided on the appeal.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the trial court erred in preventing Baker from using a police report written by another officer to refresh a testifying officer’s memory regarding a potentially exculpatory confrontation with the victim.
Rule of Law
Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which addresses the use of writings to refresh a witness’s memory while testifying.
Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court delved into the distinction between ‘Present Recollection Revived’ and ‘Past Recollection Recorded,’ emphasizing their differences. Present Recollection Revived allows a witness to use external stimuli to jog their memory, and then testify based on the refreshed memory. The court highlighted that such stimuli do not have to meet stringent evidentiary standards because they are not entered into evidence themselves.
In contrast, Past Recollection Recorded involves admitting a record into evidence when a witness can no longer recall an event, and thus requires strict verification standards. The court reasoned that any object or document—regardless of its authorship or accuracy—could be used as a stimulus for Present Recollection Revived, provided it aids in evoking a genuine memory from the witness.
The trial court’s error lay in applying standards for Past Recollection Recorded to an attempt at Present Recollection Revived, unduly limiting Baker’s ability to present potentially exculpatory evidence through refreshed testimony.
Conclusion
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland found that Baker was erroneously and prejudicially denied the opportunity to refresh the police officer’s memory and reversed the decision of the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Present Recollection Revived allows for various stimuli to refresh a witness’s memory without entering such stimuli into evidence.
- A police report written by another officer can be used to refresh a testifying officer’s memory under Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The appellate court emphasized the distinction between Present Recollection Revived and Past Recollection Recorded, noting that only the latter requires adherence to strict evidentiary standards for admissibility.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?