State of Maryland v. Mark Anthony Booker

Baltimore, Maryland criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with first-degree child abuse and second-degree assault.



In June 2019, L.'s biological mother ("M.") lived in Baltimore County with four minor children in her household: fourteen-year-old daughter, F.; ten-year-old daughter, L.; and two toddler sons. F. and L. have a common father, J. S., who lives in New York. Mr. Booker is the father of the two toddlers. Mr. Booker and M., now divorced, were still married in 2019, but Mr. Booker was not a full-time resident of the household. However, Mr. Booker frequently visited his sons at M.'s home, and would, at times, help M. care for L., who is autistic, non-verbal, and has the cognitive abilities of a two-year-old child.



On September 4, 2019, Officer Timothy Kratz, a Baltimore County police officer and elementary school resource officer, responded to a call from a school guidance counselor at L.'s school. Upon his arrival at the school, Officer Kratz and the guidance counselor went to the school nurse's office, where they encountered L. Officer Kratz observed that, in addition to being nonverbal, L. walked with a limp and lacked fine motor control, stating that "her hands were kind of all over the place . . . she couldn't really, I don't know, manipulate, pick things up." The school nurse lifted L.'s shirt, and Officer Kratz recounted that he saw razed [sic], scarred burns on her chest that were also discolored. They went from just above her navel to the bottom of her neck, as well as up the sides of her neck in the front. On her back, she had discolored scarred burns that went from the top of her neck down to the bottom of her back just above her bottom.



Mark Anthony Booker, was convicted of first-degree child abuse and second-degree assault.



* * *



Legal issue Did the circuit court err by admitting expert testimony regarding child abuse without demonstrating the reliability of the methodology and its application?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. EXPERT TESTIMONY ADMISSIBILITY. The court considered whether the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony regarding child abuse without requiring a demonstration of the reliability of both the methodology used to determine child abuse and its application to the case, ultimately finding no error and affirming the conviction.



CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The trial court's decision to deviate from pattern jury instructions for first- and second-degree child abuse was reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the court finding that the modified instructions were a correct statement of the law and did not constitute error.



CRIMINAL LAW. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. The court assessed whether the trial court properly denied motions for acquittal and determined that the evidence, which included both the direct involvement and knowledge of the defendant of the child's injuries and subsequent mistreatment, was sufficient to sustain convictions for first-degree child abuse and second-degree assault.



Key Phrases First-degree child abuse. Expert testimony admissibility. Jury instruction modification. Sufficiency of evidence. Appellate court decision.

Affirmed