A Sweet Lick

The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed a conviction where the issue was testimony on the meaning of a slang term

Petitioner, Darryl Edward Freeman, was charged in the Circuit Court for Charles County with fourteen counts surrounding the killing of Mr. Bradley Brown. During the direct examination of Detective Corey Wimberly (“Det. Wimberly”) at trial, the State sought to elicit an opinion regarding the meaning of the slang terms “lick” and “sweet licks.” Petitioner objected, arguing that Det. Wimberly had not been offered as an expert relative to defining those terms. The circuit court overruled Petitioner’s objection and allowed Det. Wimberly to testify that “lick” meant a robbery and “sweet lick” meant “an individual [who] is . . . easy to rob.”

At issue

We granted certiorari on six questions, which we rephrase into one for the sake of clarity: In the instant case, did the circuit court properly permit Det. Wimberly to opine that the word “lick” means “a robbery,” either as an expert or as a lay witness? We hold that the circuit court properly permitted Det. Wimberly to opine regarding the definition of “lick” in his capacity as a lay witness.

Majority holding

we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland, but on different grounds. On review of a circuit court’s admission of a witness’s testimony, we consider whether the circuit court abused the considerable discretion afforded to it. We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Det. Wimberly to opine as a lay witness. The record reflects that the circuit court did not believe that Det. Wimberly needed to be tendered as an expert prior to his testimony. The circuit court was correct, our precedent and the facts of this case demonstrate that Det. Wimberly’s opinion regarding the definition of “lick” was not beyond the “ken” of a layperson and did not require qualification as an expert under Maryland Rule 5-702.

Judge Watts dissented

Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that the Circuit Court for Charles County abused its discretion in allowing Detective Corey Wimberly, who was not accepted as an expert, to testify that the words “lick” and “sweet lick” refer to a robbery. From my perspective, it is improper for a witness to testify as a lay witness about the meaning of slang terms where the record shows that the witness learned the meaning of the terms solely by virtue of specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education undergone or acquired as a result of the witness’s profession. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland, which affirmed most of the convictions of Darryl Edward Freeman, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent.

Dictionary

Merriam-Webster contains sixteen definitions of the word “lick”—seven as a verb and nine as a noun—and none of them have anything at all to do with robbery. See Lick, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/lick [https://perma.cc/ X8YS-5792]. This demonstrates that the words “lick” and “sweet lick” have not entered the national lexicon as slang terms that refer to a robbery. And, there is nothing about the words “lick” or “sweet lick” that in and of themselves would make the purported slang meaning of “robbery” “discernible to the average person” or knowledge able to be “acquired through basic reasoning processes accessible to an average person.” Maj. Slip Op. at 18 (cleaned up). In short, the alleged slang meaning of the words is not discernible
to the average layperson through basic reasoning processes. That an average layperson may have “the capacity to understand new meanings for old words without intervention by the courts[,]” Maj. Slip Op at 19 n.13, does not mean that Detective Wimberly’s testimony regarding the definition of the slang term “lick” was within “the ken of the average layman,” i.e., “within the range of perception and understanding” of the average layperson.

Beond the ken

Although testimony about the meaning of slang terms will not always require expert opinion, it does where, as in this case, the meaning of the terms is beyond the ken of the average layperson and the witness’s opinion as to the meaning of the terms is based on the witness’s training and experience in a particular field.

For the above reasons, respectfully, I dissent.

(Mike Frisch)