Galloway v. State
Decision Date | 11 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 120,120 |
Citation | 809 A.2d 653,371 Md. 379 |
Parties | Anthony GALLOWAY v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Anne K. Olesen, Washington, DC, for appellant.
Gary E. Bair, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ CATHELL, Judge.
On June 19, 2000, Anthony Galloway ("appellant") was charged by the State in a single indictment, relating to the nonfatal shooting of Robert Knox, with nine counts of criminal conduct, including attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, carrying a handgun (counts 1 through 7) and possession of a firearm after having been convicted previously of a crime (counts 8 and 9).1 On March 20, 2001, in a pretrial hearing in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant's counsel expressed concern over the prejudicial impact of appellant's prior criminal record, an element of counts 8 and 9, on the remaining seven charges. As a result, without objection from the parties, the trial court created a special procedure2 where, in the same criminal trial a jury would determine the guilt of appellant in respect to counts 1 thru 7, and the trial judge would determine the guilt of the appellant in respect to counts 8 and 9. Trial proceedings began later that same day. During the two-day trial the judge and the jury heard evidence on counts 1 through 7 simultaneously, with evidence of appellant's prior convictions relating to counts 8 and 9 heard only by the judge.3 At the request of appellant, and over the objection of the State, the court deferred its verdict on counts 8 and 9 until after the jury returned its verdict on counts 1 through 7.4 On March 21, 2001, the jury found appellant "not guilty" on counts one through seven. The following day, the court returned its verdict of "guilty" as to counts 8 and 9.
At sentencing, the court merged count 9 into count 8, and sentenced appellant to five years incarceration, of which one year was suspended and two years were converted to supervised probation. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court in a memorandum dated July 27, 2001. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. This Court issued a writ of certiorari, bypassing the Court of Special Appeals, to answer the following questions:
The procedure utilized by the circuit court, i.e., the bifurcation of the decision making function between a jury and a judge in respect to different counts of a single indictment in a single trial is not expressly authorized in Maryland, or anywhere else as far as our research has revealed. In our discussion we will briefly examine the previously accepted method for severing counts of indictments into separate cases. We shall ultimately hold that in criminal cases where the circumstances and fact issues alleged are identical, a guilty verdict, or its equivalent, by the court, that is inconsistent with a jury verdict of acquittal, is, generally, impermissible.
The facts of this case are uncontroverted, the parties having agreed to proceed on the statement of facts presented in appellant's brief pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-501(g).6 The facts as presented in appellant's brief are:
Appellant contends that the issues presented in this appeal arose from the "unique procedural context" in which appellant was tried, which consisted of a "unified proceeding with a hybrid decision, part jury trial and part court trial."7 Relying on principles of double jeopardy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Maryland common law, appellant asserts that the finality of his acquittal by the jury on the charge of carrying a handgun (count 7) precluded any consideration by the trial judge of the "same offense" of possessing a firearm (counts 8 and 9). In the alternative, appellant, relying on Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), argues that collateral estoppel bars the State from "re-litigating a fact that previously ha[d] been resolved in [his] favor."8 Appellant also contends that the trial court's verdict on counts 8 and 9 violated Maryland's common law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pitts v. State
...inconsistency may be of some attenuated pertinence. It should, in any event be handled with extreme sensitivity. See Galloway v. State, 371 Md. 379, 809 A.2d. 653 (2002). 6. In Travis v. State, 218 Md. App. at 450, this Court continued:The difficulty is that although the respective heartlan......
-
Webb v. State
...mistake or a compromise to reach unanimity.'" See Price v. State, 405 Md. 10, 24, 29, 949 A.2d 619 (2008) (quoting Galloway v. State, 371 Md. 379, 406, 809 A.2d 653 (2002)). The motor vehicle theft statute, C.L. § 7-105(a), defines "Owner" as one "who has a lawful interest in or [is] in law......
-
Tate v. State
...inconsistency is between a conviction and an acquittal and 2) when both verdicts have been rendered by a jury. See Galloway v. State, 371 Md. 379, 401, 809 A.2d 653 (2002) (In a hybrid trial mingling court and jury verdicts, "the reasons why inconsistent jury verdicts are tolerated simply d......
-
Pitts v. State
...inconsistency may be of some attenuated pertinence. It should, in any event be handled with extreme sensitivity. See Galloway v. State, 371 Md. 379, 809 A.2d. 653 (2002).6 In Travis v. State, 218 Md. App. at 450, 98 A.3d 281, this Court continued:The difficulty is that although the respecti......