Hailes v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2015 · Evidence

442 Md. 488 (2015)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayDying DeclarationsConfrontation ClauseState AppealsCJP § 12-302(c)(4)(i)intangible evidencepretrial identification

Facts

After being shot in the face and neck, Pate lost the ability to speak and became quadriplegic. When he arrived at Shock Trauma, doctors told him he had twenty-four hours to live, and he cried. Two days later, while restrained in a hospital bed, on a ventilator and other life-support equipment, and able to communicate only by blinking, Pate identified Hailes from a photographic array as the shooter. Pate survived for about two years before dying from complications of the gunshot wound.

Issue

May the State appeal the suppression of an intangible pretrial identification under CJP § 12-302(c)(4)(i) when the trial court excluded it because admission would violate the Confrontation Clause? If so, was Pate's identification a dying declaration even though he died two years later, and does the Confrontation Clause apply to dying declarations?

Rule

Under CJP § 12-302(c)(4)(i), the State may appeal from a trial court's exclusion of both tangible and intangible evidence when the exclusion rests on constitutional grounds, including a determination that admission itself would be unconstitutional. Under Maryland Rule 5-804(b)(2), a statement is a dying declaration if an unavailable declarant made it while believing death was imminent and it concerned the cause or circumstances of the impending death; the elapsed time between statement and death is entitled to little, if any, weight. The Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a homicide prosecution in Baltimore, the trial judge excludes the victim’s hospital-room identification of the accused from a photo array. The judge reasons that admitting the identification at trial would violate the Sixth Amendment, even though no one claims the police acted unconstitutionally in obtaining it.

If the prosecutor seeks an immediate appeal under a statute authorizing State appeals from orders excluding evidence on constitutional grounds, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that the State may appeal exclusion of intangible evidence, including identifications, when the exclusion rests on constitutional grounds. The statute is not limited to tangible items, and it is not limited to already-completed constitutional violations in the gathering of evidence; it also reaches rulings that admission at trial would itself violate a constitution.