Supreme Court of Maryland
Karl Lymont Thompson v. State of Maryland
February 17, 2010412 Md. 497
Summary
The court affirmed Thompson’s convictions, holding that testimony about an uncharged sexual act he allegedly committed as a juvenile was admissible under the sexual-propensity application of Maryland Rule 5-404(b). The Juvenile Causes Act’s bar on evidence from juvenile proceedings does not extend to uncharged juvenile misconduct that was never presented in a juvenile proceeding. The court also held that correcting the indictment’s date and location did not change the character of the charged offenses and did not unfairly prejudice Thompson. Judge Greene, joined by Chief Judge Bell and Judge Eldridge, dissented as to the juvenile-conduct evidence and would have required a new trial.
Holding
- Admissibility of uncharged juvenile sexual conduct. The Juvenile Causes Act does not bar testimony about uncharged juvenile misconduct that was never given in a juvenile proceeding. Because the prior act involved the same defendant, the same victim, and similar sexual conduct, it was admissible under Maryland Rule 5-404(b), subject to the trial court’s assessment of probative value and unfair prejudice.
- Amendment of indictment’s date and location. Changing the indictment’s date range and location to reflect the November 1986 Goodnow Road incident did not change the character of the charged offenses, because the amendments did not alter any offense element or substitute a different offense. The amendments were permissible without Thompson’s consent, and the discovery record showed that he was not unfairly prejudiced.
Docket 126 September Term, 2008
Cited authorities
- Rule 404(B) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence
- Rule 404(B) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence
- R. 404(B)
- Fed. R. Evid. 609(d)
- Fed. R. Evid. 609(d)
- Fed. R. Evid. 609(d)