Harrison v. Maryland

855 A.2d 1220 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D engaged in a shooting in Baltimore City. D fired his .38 caliber pistol six times at a man known as 'Valentine' but struck James Cook instead. Cook, was standing and talking with friends when he was struck in the neck with a bullet. D and another unknown person were shooting at someone known only to them only as Valentine, and in the course of the shooting, accidentally struck the victim, Mr. Cook. A witness was identified and taken down to the station and shown a photo array. He observed the photo array and picked out D. D waived his constitutional rights and gave a statement that was taped. D stated that he and a person known to him as Twin Shitty began firing on a person that they knew as Valentine. D had one gun and the other person had two guns, stating that he had fired six shots and then they both ran. The ballistics show that there were three different firearms used and they matched the caliber that D described. The victim was taken to Sinai Hospital where he was operated on. The judge imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years imprisonment for attempted second-degree murder and five years imprisonment for the handgun violation. D appealed. The court considered P's arguments that the intent element of the crime could be supported under theories of 'transferred intent,' 'depraved-heart' recklessness, and 'concurrent intent.' The court concluded that the conviction could not rest on theories of 'transferred intent' or 'depraved-heart' recklessness. The theory of 'transferred intent' fails because the doctrine only applies when a defendant shoots at his target, misses, and an unintended victim receives a fatal injury. The court held that 'depraved-heart' recklessness also does not apply because D's conviction of attempted second-degree murder requires that he had a specific intent to kill; depraved-heart' murder, on the other hand, 'only requires wanton disregard for human life, . . . a mental state [that] falls short' of the necessary mental element of attempted second-degree murder. Under 'concurrent intent,' the court held that the jury could infer that Harrison 'intentionally created a 'kill zone' to accomplish the death of Valentine, the primary victim,' and, therefore, the jury could also infer that D had a concurrent intent to kill Cook, who was among those 'gathered at the scene of the crime.' D appealed again.