Published on: Thursday, July 28, 2011

By Tom Ryan

Since rap music has been popular, some people have complained about the violent nature of some of the lyrics of those songs. However one views the merits of words about shootings and violence the freedom of artistic expression remains under the First Amendment. Sometimes, however, persons who are accused of crimes may be confronted with what they have written, as evidenced by a case last month from Maryland’s highest Court called Hannah vs. State.

The opinion from the Court of Appeals indicates that about two weeks after the defendant’s girlfriend ended their relationship, she got a series of phone calls from him one night. Eventually in response to his request to meet her new boyfriend, the victim agreed that she and the boyfriend would meet him in a church parking lot. About 3 a.m. they drove to the lot, and then the girlfriend saw a vehicle with the defendant driving and another person in the car pull up. Three shots were fired by someone from that vehicle, which did not injure the victim or her boyfriend. They called the police, who arrested Hannah and he was charged with attempted murder.

At the trial, the defendant took the witness stand and denied leaving his home after midnight that night. He also denied ever owning, shooting or even holding a gun. After saying on cross-examination that he had no interest in guns, the prosecutor was allowed over objection to show him a composition book he had written several years ago, which contained numerous violent lyrics for rap songs and a drawing of a pistol. The defendant said they were from when he was a 10th grade student. When he was asked a series of 10 questions quoting colorful lyrics about drive-by shootings and guns, he admitted he had written them. The jury convicted him, and the case went to the Court of Appeals.

The Court reviewed the law regarding the admissibility in evidence of things written by a criminal defendant who testifies, distinguishing written statements of fact by the defendant from inadmissible works of fiction. These include a number of cases about rap songs or videos. It noted that there was no evidence that Hannah’s lyrics were biographical. The Court concluded that the trial judge had abused his discretion in allowing the State to ask 10 questions about the lyrics, which were not relevant to the charges in the case and suggested he was “a thug” who could be violent.

The Court said the State could have just asked if he had knowledge of guns, shown him the drawing, and asked only if he written lyrics about them. The series of questions were too prejudicial to be harmless error. While what we write may come back to haunt us, the Courts will balance freedom of expression with actual admissions of wrongdoing.

.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.