By: Jayna Peterson   

          The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the trial court’s exclusion of the victim’s statement, “[t]his is my block,” harmed Defendant Terrance Belton’s defense as it reasonably affected the verdict.  Belton v. State, 483 Md. 523, 542, 557, 295 A.3d at 623, 632 (2023).  The court determined that the due process guarantee of a fair and impartial judge extends to matters on appeal.  Id. at 558, 295 A.3d at 615.  The court also emphasized the importance of judicial discretion given modern perceptions and our history of racial tensions.  Id. at 529, 550-51, 295 A.3d at 615, 628.

     In December 2018, Terrance Belton (“Belton”) and his mother, Shakiea Worsley (“Worsley”), went to the street corner where Worsley frequently distributed narcotics.  Edward Calloway (“Calloway”) was another seller in this area and was known for combative behavior when he drank alcohol.  The night before the shooting, Worsley witnessed Calloway’s drunken behavior.  The morning of the incident, Calloway was immediately hostile upon Worsley and Belton’s arrival on the street corner, making territorial remarks like “[t]his is my block” and waving a gun in Belton’s face.  Attempting to diffuse the situation, Belton and Calloway agreed to a fistfight.

     While Belton and Calloway separated to prepare for the fight, Worsley feared that Calloway would shoot her son with the gun Calloway kept hidden in the nearby corner store.  Worsley attempted to protect Belton by initiating a physical altercation with Calloway, drawing the attention of Belton and others.  Belton neared the corner and observed Calloway’s aggressive, unyielding demeanor, causing Belton to shoot Calloway after he noticed Calloway’s gun.  At trial, Belton testified that this is when Calloway said, “[t]his is my block.”  The State objected to admitting this statement into evidence on grounds that it was hearsay.  The defense argued that the statement was not being offered for its truth but instead to show Calloway’s state of mind when he arrived on the corner and its effect of creating reasonable fear in Belton.  The trial judge excluded Calloway’s statement as hearsay.

     Belton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in Baltimore City Circuit Court.  Subsequently, Belton appealed his conviction to the Appellate Court of Maryland, arguing that Calloway’s declaration spoke to Belton’s fear of bodily harm, making the statement admissible for its importance to his case-in-chief.  However, the intermediate court affirmed Belton’s conviction.  The court found that, although the circuit court improperly excluded the statement, the exclusion was harmless to the outcome of Belton’s case because other evidence proved Calloway’s agitation, notwithstanding his initial remark.  The court used several literary references to illustrate this decision, including Beowulf, Norman Rockwell, and Whistler.  Belton later filed a motion to reconsider with the Appellate Court, finding issues with, among other things, “the inappropriate and racially-charged comparisons” within the opinion.  The Appellate Court of Maryland denied the motion, and Belton filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court of Maryland granted. 

     The Supreme Court of Maryland decided two issues about Calloway’s statement: (1) whether the statement would be admissible non-hearsay for its effect on Belton, and (2) whether the trial court’s exclusion of the statement was a harmless, reversible error.  Belton, 483 Md. at 542, 295 A.3d at 623.  The Supreme Court of Maryland analyzed the court records, finding Calloway’s statement admissible on the grounds that it was offered to prove the effect on Belton and was relevant to establishing self-defense because Belton reasonably feared bodily harm.  Id. at 542, 544-45, 295 A.3d at 623-25. 

     When an error occurs at the trial court, the burden is on the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in no way affected the outcome of the trial.  Belton, 483 Md. at 542, 295 A.3d at 623.  The notion of cumulative evidence is critical to the Supreme Court of Maryland’s harm analysis, which highlights the harmless effect of evidentiary errors if such evidence is “materially indistinguishable” from others offered.  Id. at 543, 295 A.3d at 624.  Here, the court reasoned that Calloway’s statement, coupled with the territorial nature of Calloway’s attitude and understanding of past relations, created an objectively reasonable fear beyond hostility that no other evidence established.  Id. at 545, 295 A.3d at 624-25.  The court asserted that Calloway’s statement was cumulative because the words in context illustrated why Belton reasonably feared Calloway as an imminent physical threat such that Belton’s actions would be considered self-defense.  Id. at 542, 544-45, 295 A.3d at 623.

     The court distinguishes the statement (“[t]his is my block”) from other evidence by the public aspect of the announcement.  Belton, 483 Md. at 546, 295 A.3d at 625.  Making such an open statement to the block gave further weight to the Belton’s reasonable belief and fear that a violent encounter could not be subdued.  Id.  The court recognized that the statement would have bolstered Belton’s defense such that a reasonable jury could have arrived at a different verdict, establishing a harmful but reversible error.  Id. at 542, 546, 295 A.3d at 623, 625.  Having determined the error was not harmless and possibly impacted the jury’s decision, the court ordered a new trial on the charges of voluntary manslaughter.  Id. at 546, 295 A.3d at 625.

     However, the Supreme Court of Maryland went further and opined that the appellate process also requires fairness and impartiality.  Belton, 483 Md. at 528, 295 A.3d at 615.  A considerable portion of the court’s opinion admonishes the Appellate Court’s framing of the present case, as their choice of language and analogies laced the opinion with tones that many could perceive as racially prejudicial.  Id. at 549, 553, 295 A.3d at 627, 629.  The Appellate Court introduced its opinion with an analogy to the Old English epic of Beowulf, comparing Belton to the monster Grendel.  Id. at 537, 550, 295 A.3d at 620, 628.  In a separate section titled “Demythologizing Mother[,]” the lower court’s dicta focused on Worsley, using comparisons to contend that Belton’s mother did not require protection as a frail old woman would.  Id. at 537-39, 551-52, 295 A.3d at 620-21, 628.  While not intended to have racial undertones, such associations are problematic as they demonize African Americans, a population that has endured a long history of prejudice in America.  Id. at 550-51, 295 A.3d at 628.  The judiciary aims to portray neutrality; courts should be cognizant of this effort.  Id. at 551, 295 A.3d at 628. 

    Both concurring opinions outline disagreements with the majority’s dissection of the Appellate Court’s choice of language and analogy.  Belton, 483 Md. at 559-60, 562-63, 295 A.3d at 633, 635 (Booth, J. and Gould, J., concurring).  Specifically, as Justice Gould writes, the majority contradicts its decision to decline analyzing whether the Appellate Court abused its discretion by ultimately examining the Appellate Court opinion’s tone and analogies.  Id. at 562-63, 295 A.3d at 635 (Gould, J., concurring).  Justice Booth’s concurrence duplicates the majority’s call for impartiality but emphasizes that a reviewing court shall not inspect a lower court’s dicta where it is not necessary to the decision.  Id. at 559-60, 295 A.3d at 633 (Booth, J., concurring). 

     The holding clarifies that a court may reverse a lower court’s exclusion if a statement demonstrates an effect on the defendant’s state of mind such that it establishes an element of defense.  As the court has now attributed weight to statements of initial aggression in the context of self-defense, practitioners should emphasize such evidence and be aware of this distinction, particularly when defending against comparable hearsay objections.  Judges hearing such objections may consider hearsay rules and their circumstances more closely following this decision.  Furthermore, the court formally reinforced defendants’ rights by extending the guarantee of fairness and impartiality to the appellate process.  Courts must be mindful of the impact of their dicta, especially when it potentially perpetuates racial stereotypes, because failure to do so could result in unintentional bias that warrants appeals. 

Jayna Peterson is a second-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. In addition to serving as a first-year staff editor for the Law Forum, Jayna is the secretary for UB Students for Public Interest and 2L Representative for the Disabled Law Students Association. Jayna currently works as a law clerk for the Office of the Public Defender in Baltimore City’s Youthful Defendant Unit. After graduation, Jayna plans to pursue criminal defense and post-conviction work.