*This is an unreported opinion and therefore may not be cited either as precedent or as

persuasive authority in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any

other Maryland court. Md. Rule 1-104.

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CT 17-1124A

UNREPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

______________________________________

JERMAINE BRIDGES

______________________________________

Opinion by Zarnoch, J.

In 2018, a jury convicted appellant Jermaine Bridges of robbery, conspiracy to

commit robbery, and theft after he and a co-conspirator

1

forcibly transferred $11 from a

victim using a payment app on the victim’s own phone. On appeal, Bridges challenges

certain testimony and evidence related to the payment app in question.

2

Finding no error,

we affirm the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Around 6 p.m. on June 29, 2017, Brandon Bradley was playing basketball with

4

payment app that he and Bradley both used and which Bradley had on his phone. (As we

shall discuss later in this opinion, Bridges’s appeal is based upon certain testimony and

1

Bridges and Elijah Martell were tried separately; Martell’s defense counsel

received a legislative continuance, and Bridges did not waive his right to a speedy trial.

2

Bridges also raised a sentencing issue in his brief and at oral argument. However,

Bridges’s counsel has since notified this Court that the sentencing issue is now moot,

4

Eleven dollars were transferred because the $10 transfer included a $1 transaction

fee.

evidence relating to the Cash App payment app.). After Bridges and Martell left the

scene, Bradley called 911 to report the robbery.

Following a two-day trial, a jury convicted Bridges of robbery, conspiracy to

commit robbery, and theft of less than $1,000. The jury acquitted Bridges of first and

second-degree assault, armed robbery, and various firearm charges.

subsequently sentenced to fifteen years, all but four suspended, for the robbery, and a

consecutive fifteen years, all but four suspended, for conspiracy; the theft count merged

5

Given that the thrust of Bradley’s testimony concerning Bridges and Martell’s

threatening behavior almost entirely focused on Bridges’s purported use of a handgun, it

but two years suspended for the robbery conviction, and a consecutive 15 years with all

but two years suspended for conspiracy. Given that this new sentence provided the

resentencing relief sought, Bridges asks us to only consider his evidentiary issue.

email address, those records from Cash App were ultimately not entered into evidence

because they were not properly authenticated pursuant to Rule 5-902.

7

Specifically, Bridges argues that because those records were not admitted into

evidence, it was improper at trial for Detective Hannon

8

to identify (based off those

records) Martell’s exact email address as the address linked to the recipient Cash App

account. In response, the State argues that Detective Hannon’s testimony was

appropriate, as he merely used the unadmitted records to refresh his memory of Martell’s

will not find reversible error on appeal when objectionable testimony is admitted if the

essential contents of that objectionable testimony have already been established and

presented to the jury without objection through the prior testimony of other witnesses.”)

(Emphasis in original); Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727, 744 (2010) (“[W]itness testimony is

cumulative when it repeats the testimony of other witnesses introduced during the State’s

case-in-chief.”); Webster v. State, 221 Md. App. 100, 119 (2015) (When the State offered

7

The trial transcript does not reveal Detective Hannon’s first name.

appellant’s nickname “as circumstantial evidence connecting appellant to other evidence

recovered in [an] apartment . . . that evidence . . . was cumulative to other evidence

establishing appellant’s relationship to the apartment and its contents.”). Prior to

Detective Hannon’s testimony, Bradley had testified at length and without objection

about the incident, and Bradley explained that it was Martell’s grabbing the phone that

effectuated the theft. Additionally, the State successfully introduced into evidence

screenshots from Bradley’s phone that were taken by police after Bradley reported the

phone indicating that the transfer occurred.

9

As it happens, that account belonged to Martell. However, as the State points out,

it does not matter for the purposes of a robbery or theft conviction that the account

specifically belonged to Martell, as opposed to anyone else that Bradley would not have

wanted to transfer money.

In his brief, Bridges also argues that because the official business records from

Cash App were not admitted into evidence, there was insufficient evidence to prove that

Bridges and Martell actually deprived Bradley of his property. However, this argument

overlooks—as the circuit court recognized—that Bradley’s eyewitness testimony would

long recognized that an [i]dentification by the victim is ample evidence to sustain a

conviction.”) (Quotation marks omitted); Banks v. State, 228 Md. 130, 134 (1962) (“It is

(Continued…)

As such, Bridges’s claim depends upon whether it was permissible to allow

Bradley to testify about his Cash App account, and to introduce the screenshots from

Bradley’s phone into evidence. Bridges makes a brief argument on appeal that Bradley

improperly provided non-expert testimony about how Cash App worked, and that the

screenshots should not have been admitted.

We are not persuaded. As the State argued

at trial, and as the circuit court acknowledged, Bradley was not providing expert

testimony about Cash App’s inner workings. Rather, Bradley was merely testifying, as a

that the witness have personal knowledge of the matter attested to and that the matter be

presumptively qualified to testify about the value of his goods.”).

testify about how Cash App operates or what the transaction log depicts as he had no

special knowledge of the workings of Cash App. He also had no knowledge of the

allowing Mr. Bradley to testify on these matters.” (Citations to the trial transcript

omitted).

relevant to the case at hand.”); Ragland v. State, 385 Md. 706, 723 (2005) (The Maryland

Rules of Evidence “do[] not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather

between expert and lay testimony.”) (Emphasis in original). Were we to accept Bridges’s

argument (i.e., that this information constituted expert testimony, or required expert

testimony to explain), that would mean that Bradley did not actually understand how to

use (or read) an app that he habitually used to transfer money on his phone.

conclusion would make little sense; indeed, if Cash App’s normal interface was beyond

was harmless. Thus, there was no error in convicting Bridges (as an accomplice) of

robbery, theft, and conspiracy to commit robbery.

There has been no suggestion that Bradley was not adept at using Cash App. See

case, or to present its own expert to contest the accuracy of a particular device.”). Indeed,

Bradley testified that on the day of the incident, he had made another payment (to another

friend) using the app.