Background
Brian S. Spicuzza was convicted by a Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County jury of sexual abuse of a minor, second-degree rape, and third-degree sexual offense involving his minor daughter, H. The State’s evidence included H.’s account of prolonged sexual abuse and testimony that Spicuzza supplied her with alcohol and marijuana. H.’s minor friends also testified that he supplied them with intoxicating substances, showed them pornography, solicited sexual acts, and engaged in other sexual misconduct.
Before trial, Spicuzza moved to exclude his alleged conduct involving H.’s friends as impermissible other-bad-acts evidence. He also sought to present witnesses concerning his character for honesty. The circuit court admitted the other-acts evidence under Maryland Rule 5-404(b)’s common-scheme-or-plan exception and excluded the proposed character testimony. During cross-examination, the court permitted the prosecutor to ask Spicuzza why his daughter was lying. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed his convictions in an unreported opinion, and the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that Spicuzza adequately preserved the ultimate challenge to the other-acts evidence, although his objection concerning the first friend’s testimony was not broad enough to preserve every portion of a second friend’s testimony given the next day. On the merits, the circuit court properly admitted evidence of Spicuzza’s alleged sexual misconduct toward H.’s friends and his provision of intoxicating substances because it was specially relevant to a common plan to sexually abuse H. and her friends in his apartment, rather than merely to show criminal propensity.
The Court held that the prosecutor’s question asking Spicuzza why his daughter was lying was irrelevant and incompetent. Spicuzza’s own improper statement that his daughter had made a “vile and false statement” did not open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also upheld the exclusion of testimony about Spicuzza’s honest character: he was not charged with a veracity-impeaching offense, and inconsistencies exposed during cross-examination did not place his general character for truthfulness at issue. Even if they had, the circuit court acted within its discretion because the defense proffers lacked sufficient specificity.
Key Takeaways
- After losing a motion in limine, a party ordinarily must make a contemporaneous trial objection under Maryland Rule 4-323, and a continuing objection reaches only matters clearly within its stated scope.
- Other-acts evidence may qualify under Rule 5-404(b)’s common-scheme-or-plan exception when it is specially relevant to an overarching plan and is not offered merely to prove propensity.
- A prosecutor may not ask a defendant to explain why another witness is lying, and improper testimony does not open the door to incompetent evidence; nevertheless, such an error remains subject to harmless-error review.
- Merely exposing inconsistencies in a testifying defendant’s account does not permit the defense to introduce evidence of the defendant’s general character for honesty.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies both the preservation requirements for challenges to other-acts evidence and the limited scope of continuing objections in Maryland criminal trials. Counsel must ensure that an objection expressly reaches each witness and category of disputed testimony.
The opinion also distinguishes admissible common-plan evidence from forbidden propensity proof, rejects “why-would-she-lie” questioning even when a defendant has made an improper accusation of falsity, and limits when a defendant may rehabilitate credibility through general character evidence.