Parham v. State
Decision Date | 01 September 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 1225,1225 |
Citation | 79 Md.App. 152,556 A.2d 280 |
Parties | Charles PARHAM v. STATE of Maryland. , |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Stuart O. Simms, State's Atty. for Baltimore City on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Submitted Before BISHOP, BELL (ROSALYN B.) and WENNER, JJ.
Charles Parham was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of assault with intent to murder, burglary and carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for the assault with intent to murder, three years for carrying a deadly weapon with intent to injure, and seven years for the burglary, all sentences to run concurrently with each other.
On appeal, Parham contends:
--The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial following an emotional outburst by his mother-in-law.
--The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his request for a postponement to secure the presence of two alibi witnesses.
--The evidence was insufficient to sustain the burglary conviction.
We disagree and affirm.
Parham and Charlene Queen were married in June of 1987. In early fall, they moved to 2540 West Lombard Street, Baltimore. According to Queen, Parham This occurred in October. On December 16, 1987, Queen returned home at 10:00 p.m. She related the events to the jury:
* * *
* * * "A. So that is when I knew he was going to do it so I said please Charles it is not worth it, and so he said bitch I ain't trying to hear that. So he said you got 30 seconds to take all your clothes off, so as soon as he walked a little bit from the bath room it is a room next to the bathroom so that is when I ran and jumped out the window and cut my face and ... my forehead.
During the trial, the victim's mother shouted something at appellant while he was testifying in his own defense. Despite the court's conclusion as to audibility of the comment, the reporter did record the incident. Appellant was being asked how many times he had been in for drug and alcohol treatment. He answered, "I don't know how many times, but it has been several times." At that point, the victim's mother yelled, "Every time you beat my daughter's behind, that is how many times you went there." Appellant moved for a mistrial. The trial judge denied the motion and stated:
The trial judge then instructed the jury as follows:
On appeal, appellant contends that the court's instructions were ineffective to cure the prejudice to him as a result of the incident and the denial of his motion for mistrial was an abuse of discretion. We do not agree.
A motion for mistrial, based on the behavior in the courtroom of a member of the victim's family, should only be granted under very extraordinary circumstances, and this determination lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Hunt v. State, 312 Md. 494, 502-03, 540 A.2d 1125 (1988). This determination will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of prejudice to the defendant. Hunt, 312 Md. at 503, 540 A.2d 1125. Moreover, "[e]motional responses in a courtroom are not unusual, especially in criminal trials, and manifestly, the defendant is not entitled to a mistrial every time someone becomes upset in the court of trial." Hunt, 312 Md. at 501, 540 A.2d 1125.
In the instant case, neither the trial judge nor counsel was in the position to anticipate the outburst in this case. The witnesses had been sequestered and no one was aware that the victim's mother would react as she did during appellant's testimony. The trial judge acknowledged the outburst, assessed its impact upon the jury, and gave curative instructions. Appellant did not request any alternative relief to a mistrial, such as inquiry of the jury to learn if any of them did know what was said. The trial judge was in the best position to evaluate any prejudicial effect, and we defer to her assessment. Thus, we find no clear showing of prejudice and no abuse of discretion in the denial of the mistrial.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance to secure the testimony of three alibi witnesses.
After the jury was impaneled, appellant requested a continuance in order to call some witnesses who, according to his counsel, "may or may not be alibi witnesses." These alibi witnesses had not been disclosed to defense counsel until the day of trial nor had they been given to the State. Appellant's failure to disclose these alibi witnesses was in violation of the State's request for discovery in accordance with Rule 4-263(d)(3). Under Rule 4-263(i), the trial court has broad discretion as to how violations of discovery will be handled. The trial judge could have refused to permit the witnesses to testify even if they appeared. She was not so restrictive, however. She advised co...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. State
...cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 245, 93 L.Ed.2d 170 (1986). A number of authorities are cited in Parham v. State, 79 Md.App. 152, 161, 556 A.2d 280, 284-85 (1989): "The only evidence on the status of the property in the instant case was that Queen [the defendant's wife] was in sole po......
-
Griffin v. State
...the courtroom of a member of the victim's family, should only be granted under very extraordinary circumstances." Parham v. State, 79 Md.App. 152, 158, 556 A.2d 280 (1989). In an appeal involving members of a slain police officer's family leaving the courtroom in emotional distress during t......
-
Com. v. Robbins
...had moved out of the marital dwelling, of which prior to her marriage the victim had been the sole owner. In Parham v. State, 79 Md.App. 152, 161, 556 A.2d 280 (1989), the husband and wife had been separated for six weeks (the husband having spent only a week in the dwelling before the sepa......
-
Ortuno v. State
...under very extraordinary circumstances, and this determination lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge." Parham v. State, 79 Md. App. 152, 158 (1989) (citing Hunt, 312 Md. at 502-03). Numerous out-of-state cases recognize that the issue is governed by trial court discretion, e......