Facts
- Chaz Kinichi Bazzle was charged in the Circuit Court for Howard County with attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed carjacking, first-degree assault, and related offenses arising from stabbings on June 29, 2008.
- Earlier that evening, Bazzle drank alcohol with friends at an apartment, consuming at least three 40-ounce containers of beer, and later continued drinking at a local mall.
- After leaving the mall, Bazzle was stabbed multiple times while walking to a friend’s home.
- Bazzle arrived at the home of his friend, Lakita Butler, bleeding and appearing close to passing out; Butler called 911.
- Bazzle was transported to a hospital, where his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.157 (and later lower).
- Kohlya Eggleston, also at the hospital for stab wounds suffered that night, saw Bazzle and identified him as the person who stabbed him.
- Eggleston testified that while he was in his vehicle, a man approached, opened the door, ordered him out of the car, and stabbed him multiple times.
- Eggleston further testified that the attacker had a weapon wrapped in a shirt around his hand and wore a bandana covering part of his face.
- Bazzle denied stabbing Eggleston and testified that he could not remember parts of the night.
- Bazzle requested a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication to negate the specific intent required for attempted second-degree murder and attempted armed carjacking; the trial court denied the request.
- During Eggleston’s testimony about how certain he was of his identification, defense counsel objected; when the judge indicated the objection would be overruled unless counsel stated the grounds, counsel did not provide any.
- Bazzle was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed carjacking, and first-degree assault. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense to the specific-intent crimes of attempted second-degree murder and attempted armed carjacking.
- Whether Bazzle preserved for appellate review his objection to Eggleston’s identification-certainty testimony when counsel failed to state grounds after the trial judge requested them.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and left Bazzle’s convictions intact.
- The court held that the evidence did not “generate” a voluntary intoxication instruction because it was insufficient for a rational jury to find that Bazzle was so intoxicated that he could not form the specific intent required for the charged attempt offenses.
- The court held that Bazzle did not preserve his objection to the witness’s certainty testimony; once the trial judge requested grounds, counsel’s failure to state them resulted in waiver under Maryland’s preservation rules.
Legal Principles
- A defendant is entitled to a requested jury instruction only if the evidence is sufficient to generate the issue and make the instruction applicable to the case.
- Voluntary intoxication is not established by proof of drinking alone; to negate specific intent, the evidence must support a finding that the defendant’s intoxication was so extreme that he was incapable of forming the required intent.
- Elevated blood alcohol readings and claimed memory gaps, without evidence of incapacitating impairment at the relevant time, may be inadequate to require a voluntary intoxication instruction.
- Under Maryland Rules 5-103(a) and 4-323, an objection must state specific grounds when the grounds are not apparent; when a trial judge asks for the grounds of an objection, counsel must provide them to preserve the issue for appeal.
Conclusion
In Bazzle v. State, 45 A.3d 166 (2012), the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed Bazzle’s convictions, holding that the record showed alcohol consumption but not the level of impairment required to support a jury finding that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent, so the trial court properly refused a voluntary intoxication instruction. The court also held that defense counsel failed to preserve an evidentiary challenge to testimony about the eyewitness’s certainty because counsel did not articulate any grounds after the trial judge requested them.