Yelverton, Taj v. State

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Case No. C-16-CR-23-000872
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 1986
September Term, 2024
______________________________________
TAJ YELVERTON
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 9, 2026
*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis, nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of second
degree murder, Taj Yelverton, appellant, presents for our review a single issue: whether
the court erred in admitting a detective’s “testimony and report regarding her forensic cell
phone data analysis.” 	For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the
circuit court.
At trial, the State produced evidence that in the “early morning hours” of July 3,
2022, Prince George’s County Police Corporal Christopher Hauf was dispatched to a
residence at 604 Addison Road South in Capitol Heights in response to “a call for an
individual that seemed to be deceased in a vehicle.” 	Arriving at the residence, Corporal
Hauf discovered in the driver’s seat of a Cadillac Escalade a man later identified as James
Johnson, who “appeared to be suffering from a gunshot wound to the head.” Mr. Johnson
was later determined to have died of the wound. A crime scene investigator collected from
the site of the Escalade bullet fragments, ten 5.56 by .45mm caliber cartridge cases, and
one .40 caliber cartridge case.
The State also called Mr. Yelverton’s father David Coneys, who testified that in
July 2022, he shared his silver Dodge Durango with Mr. Yelverton. Sometime after July
4, 2022, Mr. Coneys noticed a hole in the hood of the Durango. When Mr. Coneys asked
Mr. Yelverton “what happened,” he replied that “he was at a party,” “[t]here was a
shooting,” and “the truck took a bullet.”
The State also produced evidence that on August 4, 2022, police officers were
dispatched to the intersection of Friendship Drive and Allentown Road in Fort Washington
in response to “a call for a suspicious vehicle in the roadway.” Arriving at that location,

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
2
officers discovered a silver Dodge Durango with Mr. Yelverton “sleeping behind the
wheel.” 	One of the officers observed “on the floorboard of the passenger front side” an
“AR Crystal type” or “AR-style” firearm. The officers also observed a “bullet hole” in the
“front driver’s side” of the hood of the Durango.
The State also called firearms examiner Jaimie Smith, whom the court admitted as
an expert in “firearms examination and identification.” Mr. Smith testified that the ten 5.56
by .45mm caliber cartridge cases collected at the site of the Escalade were “the kind of
cartridge case that typically goes in what people would refer to as an AR-15[] rifle format-
style gun.” Mr. Smith concluded “that all ten fired cartridge cases . . . were consistent with
having been fired in the same unknown firearm,” and that they were “microscopically
consistent” with “having been fired in” the firearm seized from the Durango. 	Mr. Smith
further concluded that the .40 caliber cartridge case was fired from “a separate gun.”
Mr. Yelverton contends that the “court erred in admitting [a detective’s] testimony
and report without an adequate foundation.” On the first day of testimony, the prosecutor
offered into evidence AT&T “Wireless Subscriber Information” indicating that Mr.
Coneys was the “Financial Liable Party” for phone number 202-802-2011. Following an
objection by defense counsel, the court noted that the “certification” was “blank,” and the
prosecutor stated that he would “offer it in with the certification.” Later, the prosecutor re-
offered the subscriber information and the “certification.” 	The court noted that the
certification was “dated October 13th,” and the information was “dated October 6th.” The
prosecutor stated that he would “get it corrected.”

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
3
The following day, the prosecutor offered what he claimed to be “the certification
. . . records in their entirety.” Defense counsel objected on the grounds that there was “no
account number on” the records and “nothing recognizing the actual phone number,” and
the State did not file “any intent to use [phone] records.” The prosecutor stated that he
would “look at the notice,” and the court reserved on the issue.
The following day, the prosecutor recalled Mr. Coneys and attempted to “refresh
[his] recollection as to what [he] said about that being [Mr. Yelverton’s] phone number.”
During Mr. Coneys’s testimony, the prosecutor asked the court to allow him to play for the
jury a portion of an interview of Mr. Coneys by Prince George’s Police Detective Ibrahim
Ige. 	Defense counsel replied that he had not been given “any [such] video.” 	The court
noted that it was “the State’s obligation to turn over this information,” and concluded that
Mr. Coneys’s recollection was not refreshed. The court subsequently excused the jury until
the following Monday.
When the parties reconvened, the court stated that it had rethought its “ruling that
[it] had made specifically with respect to allowing the State to have Mr. Coneys [hear] the
recording of the investigation that they did with him about the phone number.” Noting that
defense counsel did not make “any argument that there was any prejudice,” the court, over
defense counsel’s objection, concluded that the prosecutor could play for Mr. Coneys the
“five-second sections where [Detective Ige] just asks [Mr. Coneys] about the phone
number, then he answers.” 	Outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor called Mr.
Coneys and played the recording. The following colloquy then occurred:

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
4
[PROSECUTOR:] 	So does that refresh your recollection about the
phone number that – and the phone that you got him?
[MR. CONEYS:] It does.
* * *
[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. All right. And you recall saying that to the
detective?
[MR. CONEYS:] I don’t recall, but it’s there. It’s been over a year,
so it’s kind of a stressful morning for me, so . . .
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay. 	So on the matter of the phone, you’re
saying you can’t really recall it, but you can’t really recall it well enough to
really testify about it is what you’re saying?
* * *
[MR. CONEYS:] 	I don’t remember the number off the top of my
head. What you’ve been asking me is to validate the number.
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay. 	Was your memory fresher on that matter
when you spoke with Detective Ige?
[MR. CONEYS:] It must have – I don’t remember that. I can’t say it
was refreshed. I don’t remember.
[PROSECUTOR:] I mean, but did you recall the events better back
then, the number, the phone number? 	Would you say back then, your
memory was better?
[MR. CONEYS:] I don’t know that it was better. I just – I remember
us having the conversation. I don’t remember if it was better, but I remember
the conversation. I remember us talking.
[PROSECUTOR:] Okay.
[MR. CONEYS:] 	I don’t remember how I validated – I don’t
remember how I validated it.
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay, but you do recall validating the number
then?

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
5
[MR. CONEYS:] Well, I mean, I’m hearing myself talking.
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay. 	And does that accurately reflect your
knowledge?
[MR. CONEYS:] The video?
[PROSECUTOR:] Yes.
[MR. CONEYS:] I mean, I can’t argue with the video.
THE COURT: So I need an answer. So does it or doesn’t it?
Ask your question again, [prosecutor].
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay. 	What you just saw, does that accurately
reflect your knowledge of Taj Yelverton’s phone number back then? 	You
need to see it again?
* * *
Does it accurately reflect the fact that you knew your son’s phone number
back then?
[MR. CONEYS:] I don’t know that I knew it off the top of my head.
[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. Did you respond to Detective Ige?
[MR. CONEYS:] Yeah, I did. Yeah.
[PROSECUTOR:] And did he ask you about this phone number 202-
802-2011?
[MR. CONEYS:] That’s what he asked me on the video, yes.
[PROSECUTOR:] Yes. Did you say that you?
[MR. CONEYS:] Yes. Yes, I did.
[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. So would it be safe to say that back then,
you verified that was your son’s phone number?

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
6
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’d object at this point.
* * *
THE COURT: Okay. I’m not so sure I got a flat answer. So ask him
the last question again and we’ll see where we go.
[PROSECUTOR:] 	Okay. 	So what you saw in the tape, would you
say that it accurately reflected the fact that when Detective Ige asked you
about that number, that you said that was your son Taj Yelverton’s phone
number?
[MR. CONEYS:] Yes.
During cross-examination, Mr. Coneys testified that he did not “have any independent
recollection in terms of what [Mr. Yelverton’s] number was then,” and did not remember
“whether or not [he] looked up [Mr. Yelverton’s] number” or “conferred with anything.”
After the jury entered the courtroom, Mr. Coneys confirmed that he had “a chance to
refresh [his] recollection about that number,” that the number “is on [his] account,” and
that Mr. Yelverton “was using that phone.” 	During cross-examination, Mr. Coneys
confirmed that “[o]utside of the video,” he did not “have any independent recollection that
that was [Mr. Yelverton’s] number.”
The State subsequently called Prince George’s County Police Detective Aven
Odhner, whom the court “accepted as an expert in the field of cell phone and cell phone
technology.” Over defense counsel’s objection, the court admitted into evidence “a report
[that Detective Odhner] compiled after analyzing call detail records for the target phone
number of 202-802-2011.” Using “a location of incident [of] 604 Addison Road in Capitol
Heights,” the detective “confirm[ed] that the phone” using that number “was in the area of

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
7
the location of incident up until 11:51 and 38 seconds” p.m. on July 2, 2022, and at 12:03
a.m. on July 3, 2022, “was . . . down in the Temple Hills area.”
Mr. Yelverton contends that because the prosecutor “was not able to successfully
refresh [Mr. Coneys’s] present recollection of the number,” the prosecutor “did not succeed
in laying an adequate foundation for [Detective] Odhner’s cell phone analysis,” and hence,
the court “erred in admitting [the detective’s] testimony and report.” We disagree. Rule
5-901 states that “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition
precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what its proponent claims,” and an “example[] of authentication or
identification conforming with the requirements of this Rule” is “[c]ircumstantial evidence
. . . that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.” 	Here, Mr. Coneys expressly
testified, despite some conflicting testimony, that the excerpt of Detective Ige’s interview
of Mr. Coneys “refresh[ed his] recollection about the phone number . . . and the phone that
[Mr. Coneys] got” Mr. Yelverton, that the number “is on [Mr. Coneys’s] account,” and that
Mr. Yelverton “was using that phone.” 	This circumstantial evidence was sufficient to
support a finding that the records upon which Detective Odhner relied documented Mr.
Yelverton’s use of the number and phone, and hence, the court did not err in admitting the
detective’s testimony and report.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR 	PRINCE 	GEORGE’S 	COUNTY
AFFIRMED. 	COSTS 	TO 	BE 	PAID 	BY
APPELLANT.