Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2381,2381 |
| Parties | KARWIN MILBURN CARROLL v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Charles County
UNREPORTED
Meredith, Graeff, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Meredith, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
In the Circuit Court for Charles County, Karwin Milburn Carroll, appellant, was found guilty of direct criminal contempt after he was called as a witness but, based on his assertion of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, refused to answer any questions. The Court sentenced Carroll to a term of 179 days' imprisonment. In this appeal, Carroll presents a single question for our review:
Did the circuit court err in finding Appellant in direct criminal contempt?
For the reasons that follow, we answer Carroll's question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
In September of 2017, Carroll and another man were the victims of a shooting in Charles County. During the investigation into the shooting, Carroll was found to be in possession of various items of contraband, which resulted in several criminal charges being filed against Carroll in the Circuit Court for Charles County. Carroll ultimately pleaded guilty to two of those charges: possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a stolen firearm. Carroll was sentenced to a total term of eight years' imprisonment. Carroll did not appeal those convictions or seek any other post-conviction relief.
In September of 2018, the person who shot Carroll—Brian Pierce—was tried in the Circuit Court for Charles County on various charges in connection with the shooting of Carroll and one other man. The State's theory of the case was that Pierce deliberately and without justification shot both men. Pierce's defense theory was that Carroll and the other victim were drug dealers who had assaulted and threatened Pierce, and that Pierce had responded by shooting both men in self-defense.
On the fourth day of Pierce's trial, the State called Carroll to testify. Upon taking the stand, but before even being sworn in, Carroll stated: The trial court immediately excused the jury and, outside the presence of the jury, asked Carroll if he was asserting his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Carroll responded in the affirmative. The court then asked Carroll if he had been charged criminally "in relation to this matter" and if he had already been sentenced as a result of those criminal charges. Again, Carroll responded in the affirmative. When asked whether any appeal had been filed in his own case, Carroll stated that he did not "have any knowledge of that."
The trial court then asked Carroll's attorney, who was in the courtroom, whether, given the procedural posture of Carroll's criminal case, there was "a substantial basis for the Fifth Amendment" assertion. Carroll's counsel declined to answer the question, stating that she "would be divulging privileged information if [she] did." The court then asked the State if it would be willing to grant Carroll immunity if he were to testify. The State responded that it wanted Carroll to testify, but no immunity would be granted. Pierce's attorney also wanted Carroll to testify. The court then held a bench conference, at which the following colloquy ensued:
At the conclusion of the bench conference, the trial court brought the jury back into the courtroom and had Carroll return to the witness stand. The court then asked the clerk to administer the oath, but, when she did, Carroll refused to cooperate, stating that he "ain't testifying, so need [sic] to even given me that." After the court directed Carroll to respond and the clerk reread the oath, Carroll again refused to answer, reiterating that he was "not testifying." Finally, after the clerk endeavored to administer the oath a third time, Carroll responded: "Alright." The State then attempted to begin its direct examination of Carroll:
(Emphasis added.)
At that point, the trial court suspended Carroll's direct testimony and excused the jury. The court then advised Carroll that if he did not "answer the questions" he would be held in direct contempt. After the court advised Carroll of the consequences of a contempt finding and asked, repeatedly, if he understood those consequences, Carroll asked if hecould speak to his attorney. The court granted the request and took a recess. When the proceedings resumed approximately 20 minutes later, the following colloquy ensued:
(Emphasis added.)
Carroll contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of direct criminal contempt. Carroll maintains that the court erred because he "had a cognizable Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he was compelled to testify against Pierce, who was on trial for attempting to murder appellant, and who claimed he had acted in self-defense." Carroll also maintains that the court erred because it focused exclusively on the charges for which appellant had pleaded guilty and "ignored the possibility that appellant could potentially be charged with myriad crimes outside the indictment that resulted in that plea."
The State responds that "simply declaring the desire to remain silent, across the board, is insufficient to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination." Moreover, the State notes that, although the trial court "ruled that it would need to resolve whether a Fifth Amendment privilege applied on a question-by-question basis, and directed Carroll to testify[,] Carroll refused to answer the State's first question—and Carroll does not identify any way in which the answer to that question could have incriminated him." Consequently,the State asserts: "The court properly ruled that Carroll's refusal to answer was contempt of court."
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial