Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 935-2021 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER D. ALEXANDER v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No. C-10-CR-19-001099
OPINION [*]
A jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County convicted Christopher D. Alexander, appellant, of second-degree rape second-degree assault, possession of phencyclidine ("PCP"), and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court sentenced appellant to a term of 20 years' imprisonment, all but 10 years suspended, on the conviction for second-degree rape, one year, consecutive, on the conviction for possession of PCP, and one year, consecutive, for possession of drug paraphernalia. The conviction for assault merged into the rape conviction.
On appeal, appellant presents the following question for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial after a juror disclosed midtrial that he knew appellant?
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
On the evening of April 23, 2019, the victim visited appellant at his residence in Frederick, Maryland, to style his hair. Appellant made three mixed drinks for the victim during the visit. She could not remember much of what occurred that evening after her third drink. She recalled waking up in the early hours of April 24, 2019, confused and in appellant's bed wearing no pants or underwear. When she realized that appellant was engaging in vaginal intercourse with her, she jumped up, put on her pants, gathered her belongings, and exited the residence. The victim reported the sexual assault to officers of the Frederick City Police Department ("FCPD") shortly thereafter. She then went to Frederick Memorial Hospital, where she underwent a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination.
FCPD officers subsequently executed a search warrant at appellant's residence. They found, among other things, vials of PCP, oxycodone pills, and codeine tablets.
Jury selection began on May 4, 2021. After the prospective jurors were sworn in, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and appellant introduced themselves, in turn, to the venire. The court then began voir dire, as follows:
After the jury was sworn, the court made remarks regarding the anticipated course of trial and gave preliminary instructions to the jury. The court stated that, due to COVID-19, precautions were being taken, including requiring all persons to wear masks. Attorneys and witnesses, however, occasionally would be permitted to remove their masks when it became necessary to speak with clarity or ensure proper recording of the proceedings.
After the State rested its case-in-chief, appellant testified. The court allowed appellant to remove his mask while testifying.
At the end of the day, the court's law clerk received a handwritten note from Juror No. 1. The note stated:
Not knowing the defendant by his legal name, I did not realize I do know him. Not personally, just in passing.
The law clerk gave the note to the court, which had already dismissed the jury for the day.[1]
The following colloquy then ensued between the court, the prosecutor, and defense counsel:
The next day, May 6, 2021, the court summoned Juror No. 1 to appear for further voir dire outside the presence of the other members of the jury, regarding Juror No. 1's relationship with appellant. After reading the note to Juror No. 1, the court asked him if he would "be able to decide this case based on only the evidence that has been presented" and the instructions given, and Juror No. 1 said "yes." He also said that he could "render a fair and impartial verdict."
The court invited counsel to ask questions, and the following occurred:
Juror No. 1 then returned to the jury assembly area, and defense counsel moved for a mistrial "in light of [J]uror [N]o. 1's hesitancy to acknowledge a fair and impartial trial defense," as well as his perception that Juror No. 1 "seemed hesitant to explain where and how he ha[d] seen [appellant]" and that the circumstances in which he had seen Mr. Alexander "could be similar to the events in this case."
In opposition to the mistrial motion, the prosecutor stated:
Your Honor, I don't think the hesitancy was that he didn't think, he was thinking he couldn't be fair and impartial. It seemed like he was just giving it some serious thought to make sure his answer was correct. He also, he said he did not hang out with the defendant. He saw him in passing because they have mutual friends. If defense counsel wants to inquire further as to exactly what the nature of that was, but not to presume that it was hanging out at a party or something because I think that is not what he indicated. I specifically asked him if they hung out together and he said no. I don't think, there was no hesitancy I wouldn't call it. I would just call it being very introspective and making sure he was answering the question correctly and he did. He said he could be fair and impartial. It has been over five years since he ever even saw the defendant and he had very little knowledge of him. So, if there is further questions defense counsel wants to ask about the nature of them knowing each other in passing, but I think that based on his answers I don't think that it is grounds for a mistrial.
The court afforded counsel a second opportunity to voir dire Juror No. 1. The following examination then ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial