Hardaway v. State
Decision Date | 05 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 173,173 |
Citation | 562 A.2d 1234,317 Md. 160 |
Parties | Anthony E. HARDAWAY v. STATE of Maryland. Sept. Term 1987. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William H. Murphy, Jr. (Gary S. Bernstein, both on brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS and BLACKWELL, JJ.
We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to decide whether it is error for a trial judge to instruct a jury, over a defendant's objection, that the defendant has a constitutional right not to testify and that no adverse inference should be drawn from his election to remain silent. We conclude that, absent special circumstances, giving this instruction after a defendant has objected to it is error.
In October 1986, Anthony Hardaway was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on a charge of attempted murder. Mr. Hardaway did not testify at the trial. At the conclusion of testimony and prior to instructing the jury, the trial judge met with counsel in his chambers. At the chambers conference, defense counsel requested that the court not instruct the jury that Mr. Hardaway had a right not to testify and that no adverse inference should be drawn from his failure to testify. The trial judge nevertheless instructed the jury as follows
When defense counsel approached the bench and made an objection, the following exchange took place:
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted murder. After denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, the trial judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, suspending all but fifteen years of the sentence.
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, Hardaway v. State, 72 Md.App. 592, 531 A.2d 1305 (1987). Thereafter, this Court granted Hardaway's petition for a writ of certiorari, 311 Md. 698, 537 A.2d 262 (1988).
Hardaway does not dispute that the trial judge's cautionary instruction was a correct statement of the law. Rather, he urges us to rule that, as a matter of Maryland law, giving the instruction, after a defendant's request that it not be given, constitutes error. Hardaway reasons that the instruction may inadvertently harm a defendant by calling to the jury's attention the defendant's election not to testify.
The State maintains that the instruction cannot be improper since it benefits the defendant. The State further reasons that because the instruction must be given at a defendant's request, and may be given sua sponte, it is not error to give it over a defendant's objection.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 98 S.Ct. 1091, 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), held that giving a "no adverse inference" instruction over a defendant's objection does not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Lakeside Court nevertheless concluded that 435 U.S. at 340, 98 S.Ct. at 1095.
This Court has never flatly addressed the issue in this case as a matter of Maryland common law. In Lambert v. State, 197 Md. 22, 78 A.2d 378 (1951), where it does not appear that the defendant requested beforehand that the instruction not be given, the Court held that it was not error for a trial judge to instruct the jury not to infer guilt from the defendant's failure to testify. Nevertheless, Lambert is distinguishable from the instant case in which the defendant clearly indicated prior to the giving of the instruction that he did not want it given. 1
Decisions by courts that have considered this issue as a matter of nonconstitutional state law generally fall into three categories. Some cases support the State's view that giving the instruction over a defendant's objection is permissible. Harvey v. State, 187 So.2d 59, 60 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 194 So.2d 619 (Fla.1966); State v. Baxter, 51 Haw. 157, 158-159, 454 P.2d 366 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 984, 25 L.Ed.2d 138 (1970); State v. Garcia, 84 N.M. 519, 505 P.2d 862, 863 (N.M.App.), cert. denied, 84 N.M. 512, 505 P.2d 855 (1972); State v. Goldstein, 65 Wash.2d 901, 400 P.2d 368, 369, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 189, 15 L.Ed.2d 152 (1965).
A second group of decisions suggests that trial courts not give this instruction over a defendant's objection but holds that doing so is not erroneous. State v. Piper, 113 Ariz. 390, 393-394, 555 P.2d 636 (1976); Kimmel v. People, 172 Colo. 333, 336, 473 P.2d 167 (1970); State v. Perry, 223 Kan. 230, 236, 573 P.2d 989 (1977); Hill v. State, 466 S.W.2d 791, 793-794 (Tex.Ct.Crim.App.1971); Hines v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 905, 911, 234 S.E.2d 262 (1977).
A sizable number of cases have held, however, as a matter of state law, that giving this instruction over a defendant's objection is erroneous. 2 Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97, 100, 398 S.W.2d 213 (1966); People v. Anderson, 153 Ill.App.3d 542, 106 Ill.Dec. 512, 505 N.E.2d 1303, app den., 116 Ill.2d 562, 113 Ill.Dec. 304, 515 N.E.2d 113 (1987); Priest v. State, 270 Ind. 449, 453-454, 386 N.E.2d 686 (1979); Gross v. State, 261 Ind. 489, 491-492, 306 N.E.2d 371 (1974); State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864, 869 (Iowa 1970); Commonwealth v. Buiel, 391 Mass. 744, 746, 463 N.E.2d 1172 (1984); People v. Hampton, 394 Mich. 437, 438, 231 N.W.2d 654 (1975); State v. Thompson, 430 N.W.2d 151, 153 (Minn.1988). See also People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 847, 61 Cal.Rptr. 821 (1967).
Several of the cases which hold that it is error to give the instruction over a defendant's objection reason that, while the instruction is designed to benefit the defendant, it may not always be beneficial. Therefore, if the defendant believes in a particular case that the instruction is not beneficial, he should be able to forego it. This reasoning is typified by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Kimball, supra, where the court held (176 N.W.2d at 869):
It is clear that the purpose of the cautionary instruction is to protect the defendant in the exercise of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Lakeside v. Oregon, supra, 435 U.S. at 339, 98 S.Ct. at 1095; Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652, 662, 224 A.2d 668, 673 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 984, 17 L.Ed.2d 877 (1967); Lambert v. State, supra, 197 Md. at 28-29, 78 A.2d 381. In fact, the entitlement to have the jury instructed that no adverse inference should be drawn from the defendant's silence is itself a constitutional right belonging to the defendant. Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981).
As the cautionary instruction is a right of the defendant, for the purpose of protecting the defendant, it should, like other rights, be waivable by the defendant. The observation by Chief Judge Murphy for the Court, in Rice v. State, 311 Md. 116, 129, 532 A.2d 1357 (1987), is applicable here:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.
...that case, the evidence was still excludable if it violated Maryland's “knock and announce” rule); Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 163, 166–67, 169, 562 A.2d 1234, 1235, 1237, 1238 (1989) (determining that while the United States Supreme Court held that “ giving a ‘no adverse inference’ ins......
-
Marshall v. State Of Md.
... ... See also ... Crosby v. State, supra, 366 Md. at 534, 784 A.2d at 1111 (Harrell, J., concurring, and referring to “the greater protections offered by Art. 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights than the Fifth Amendment”); ... Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 164-169, 562 A.2d 1234, 1236-1238 (1989) (holding, contrary to federal law, that a jury instruction that no adverse inference should be drawn from a defendant's election not to testify should not be given over the defendant's objection); ... Choi v. State, supra, 316 Md ... ...
-
Walls v. State
... ... Having concluded that the court's proposed instruction would have been appropriately curative, we turn to address the impact, if any, of Walls's refusal to allow the court to give the curative instruction. Citing Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 562 A.2d 1234 (1989), Walls argues that he was entitled to decline the court's proposed 142 A.3d 646 curative instruction because it was an instruction advising the jury of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, 228 Md.App. 671 and therefore the only proper course of ... ...
-
McElroy v. State
... ... State, 313 Md. 665, 547 A.2d 1054 (1989)); cautionary jury instruction regarding defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to testify is a constitutional protection waivable by the defendant or counsel (Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 562 A.2d 1234 (1989); Martinez v. State, 309 Md. 124, 522 A.2d 950 (1987)); failure to exercise right of allocution during death sentencing deemed waiver of non-fundamental right ( State v. Calhoun, 306 Md. 692, 511 A.2d 461 (1986), cert. den., 480 U.S. 910, 107 S.Ct. 1339, ... ...
-
Jury Instructions
...on the question when the Defendant decided not to assist the jury in their fact-finding function. Id. at 1173-74. In Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 169 (1989), the Court of Appeals held that it is the defendant's decision whether to have this jury instruction or be free of this instruction......
-
Defendant's Right To Be Present At Every Stage of the Trial and Every Critical Stage of the Case
...333, 340-41 (1978). 2. Maryland Maryland precludes a curative Griffin instruction unless the defendant so requests. In Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160 (1989), the Court of Appeals held: "Since the instruction is the right of the Defendant, for his benefit, but because the beneficial effect m......
-
Related Evidentiary Issues
...permits the trial court to give a Griffin-Carter curative instruction, even over the defendant's objection. However, in Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 166-69 (1989), the Court of Appeals held that, under Maryland's common law, the trial court may not give a Griffin-Carter curative instruct......
-
Chilling Effect On the Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination
...(1978). In Maryland, the court may not give the "no adverse inference" instruction without the defendant's permission. Hardaway v. State, 317 Md. 160, 168-69 (1989) (citing with approval MPJI-Cr 3:17). In Crosby, 366 Md. 518, the Court of Appeals stated: "An inherent component of this guara......