Opposing arguments were heard in regard to 21-year-old Marvin Cabrera Ortiz’s involvement in a shooting over a stolen dirt bike before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Anthony F. Vittoria on Oct. 21.
Ortiz is charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and multiple firearm violations in connection to a shooting that occurred on Mar. 19.
During that early morning, officers responded to the 1200 block of Quantril Way and located a victim suffering from a single gunshot wound to the buttocks.
According to charging documents, the victim told detectives that an individual in the front passenger seat of a white Honda Accord shot at him from inside the vehicle. The victim believed that the shooting stemmed from his friend stealing a dirt bike that belonged to one of the individuals inside of the vehicle. However, he admitted to investigators that he opened fire on the occupants of the vehicle but said that Ortiz had returned fire from the front passenger seat.
A short time after the incident, occupants of the vehicle flagged down officers at a separate location and alleged that they had been shot at.
Twelve shell casings from .40-caliber and 9mm firearms as well as the victim’s .40-caliber handgun were recovered from the scene.
Testifying for the prosecution, a forensic scientist withbthe Baltimore Police Department Firearm Analysis Unit confirmed that several shell casings recovered were consistent with an unknown firearm while other casings were likely fired from the victim’s handgun recovered by detectives.
Additionally, the prosecution called on the alleged victim to testify. The individual shared that at two-thirty a.m. he left his residence to retrieve items from a car when a white Honda Accord approached. The victim shared that while in a dispute over a stolen dirt bike, Ortiz’s co-defendant Juan Almonte, 30, stated, “We are going to kill you” if the bike was not returned. He also claimed that he “would rather be in jail than dead” and tried to run back into his house but was shot by Ortiz in the process.
Through cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Frank questioned why officers had stated that the driver of the vehicle was the shooter, not Ortiz, which the victim argued was incorrect.
The question arose from a plea deal made on the victim’s behalf to transfer his case to juvenile court in hopes of a more favorable disposition. In disavowing the agreement, the victim said he didn’t know what was in the document at the time. Initially, the victim said the shooter was the driver of the vehicle, but later changed his mind.
Judge Vittoria sustained the prosecution’s objection to this line of questioning by the defense attempting to portray the plea deal as a quid pro quo.
During closing arguments, the prosecution repeated that firearm evidence matching the victim’s handgun was recovered from the ground where the victim was allegedly backing away. The prosecutor also replayed footage and pointed out a muzzle flash from the passenger side of the white vehicle.
After displaying images taken from a warranted search of the Honda showing a ski mask and .40-caliber casings on the windshield, the prosecutor questioned, “Why were they wearing ski masks if they were not doing anything wrong?”
Defense attorney Frank challenged that there was no fingerprint or gunpowder investigation, nor search for the discarded firearm allegedly used by the defendant. He also mentioned that one ski mask found inside of the vehicle would not equate to conspiracy between two individuals.
Frank argued that the prosecution does not have the facts needed and that it is unknown as to who fired the gun because the driver of the vehicle could have reached over to the passenger side. He also recognized that every individual who testified stated that the driver of the vehicle was the shooter, not Ortiz.
Finally, the prosecution offered a rebuttal claiming that photos from the inside of the vehicle revealed multiple ski masks were found, supporting conspiracy to murder. He stated that there was no need for fingerprints to be collected as owners of all pieces of evidence were known.
Following closing arguments, jurors were sent to deliberate on a verdict.
