concluding that, notwithstanding the circuit court’s erroneous admission of expert testimony in contravention of Md. Rule 5-702 and 4-263(d)(8)(A), the error was harmless predicated on a comprehensive review of the record therein
How later courts described this case
- concluding that, notwithstanding the circuit court’s erroneous admission of expert testimony in contravention of Md. Rule 5-702 and 4-263(d)(8)(A), the error was harmless predicated on a comprehensive review of the record therein
- reiterating that “when an objector sets forth the specific grounds for his objection ... the objector will be bound by those grounds and will ordinarily be deemed to have waived other grounds not specified”
- recognizing the inflammatory nature of evidence regarding gang membership
- to transform the gang membership “from an impermissible prior bad act to a concrete component of the crime charged,” the State must prove as a threshold matter that the crime is gang-related
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREENE, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that most of the expert witness’s gang-related testimony is relevant to the issue of Gutierrez’s motive to commit murder. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that “the trial court erred in allowing [the expert *523 witness] to comment that MS-13 is the gang that law enforcement ‘had seen the most violence with recently for the past four, four and a half years in this region.’ ” Op. at 499, 32 A.3d at 16. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the trial judge’s error was harmless. Accordingly, I join in and adopt the reasoning articulated in Chief Judge Bell’s dissenting opinion, to the extent that the majority failed to apply the harmless error test as explained by this Court in Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 , 350 A.2d 665 (1976) and recently reaffirmed by this Court in Perez v. State, 420 Md. 57 , 21 A.3d 1048 (2011); Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 , 4 A.3d 976 (2010); Donaldson v. State, 416 Md. 467 , 7 A.3d 84 (2010), and Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 , 970 A.2d 320 (2009).