Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Appeals: April 28, 2008

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Apr 28, 2008

Again after reviewing his statement, Price clarified that Dickey and Tucker got into a white car.

Price admitted that he testified at Juan Tucker's trial in 2003, and stated at that trial, under oath, that he lied to the police about being present during the shooting.

At Dickey's trial, however, he stated that he lied at Tucker's trial because he was afraid "of what might happen" to him, and that his current version was the truth even though he was still afraid for his safety.

Price admitted that he was a heroin addict, an occasional cocaine user, and that he had a long history of drug use, starting from age 15 or 16. Price testified that he was seeking help for his drug habit currently. Price admitted that he had used heroin on the day of the shooting but that it did not affect his ability to witness or recollect the events.

Price stated that he was currently on probation for a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance. Finally, Price stated repeatedly on the record that he was testifying at Dickey's trial as part of a deal to avoid charges following an arrest for possession of controlled dangerous substances.

Dickey did not testify in his own behalf nor did he call any witnesses in his defense.

At the close of evidence and prior to jury deliberation, petitioner's counsel requested the following jury instruction: "There has been evidence introduced at the trial that the government (or defendant) called as a witness a person who was using (or addicted to) drugs when the events he observed took place or who is now using drugs. I instruct you that there is nothing improper about calling such a witness to testify about events within his personal knowledge."

"On the other hand, his testimony must be examined with greater scrutiny than the testimony of any other witness. The testimony of a witness who was using drugs at the time of the events he is testifying about, or who is using drugs (or an addict) at the time of his testimony may be less believable because of the effect the drugs may have on his ability to perceive or relate the events in question."

"If you decide to accept his testimony, after considering it in light of all the evidence in this case, then you may give it whatever weight, if any, you find it deserves."

The circuit court refused to give the instruction primarily on the ground that the requested instruction would be fairly covered by other instructions to the jury concerning witness credibility and accuracy of a witness's memory.

Dickey was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 30 years.

Both the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

LAW: Maryland Rule 4-325 governs jury instructions in criminal cases. Rule 4-325(c) has been interpreted consistently as requiring the giving of a requested instruction when the following three-part test has been met: (1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given. Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 302 - 03 (2006).