State of Maryland v. Edgar Gerardo Escobar Sosa

Upper Marlboro, Maryland criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder.



Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Edgar Gerardo Escobar Sosa, appellant, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony or crime of violence. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the court erred in admitting his statement to the police that "whatever happened, happened" as an admission against penal interest; and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions because his statement to the police, even if properly admitted, "did not corroborate the corpus delicti of the State's case." For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.



At approximately 8:40 a.m. on June 5, 2021, the police found the deceased bodies of Jose Lemos and Hilber Velasquez in the stairwell of an apartment building located at 5304 Hamilton Street in Hyattsville. The police smelled gunpowder and found seven 9 millimeter cartridges at the crime scene. The Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, who was admitted as an expert in forensic pathology, testified that the victims' deaths were homicides caused by multiple gunshot wounds.



Ten days after the murders, appellant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with police. During that interview, which was admitted at trial, appellant admitted to being a member of a "clique." He indicated that on the day of the homicide members of the "clique" ordered him to conduct a "hit" on the victims and that he believed he would be "hit" if he did not comply with that order. The "clique" gave him a nine millimeter handgun and he went into the apartment alone. Then "what happened, happened, you know . . ."



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. ADMISSION AGAINST PENAL INTEREST. The case examines whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's statement to the police as an admission against penal interest without conducting a parsing analysis under the legal guidelines.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLAIN ERROR REVIEW. The court addressed the consideration for plain error review when claims of error are not preserved at trial, emphasizing that such discretion is rarely exercised by appellate courts in the interests of fairness and judicial efficiency.



CRIMINAL LAW. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The appeal question was whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions given the defendant's statements to the police did not independently corroborate the corpus delicti of the State's case. The court found the issue unpreserved due to inadequate specificity in the defendant's motion for acquittal.



Key Phrases First-degree murder. Hearsay statement. Plain error review. Directed verdict. Corpus delicti.

Affirmed on appeal.