Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 109, September Term, 2008.,109, September Term, 2008. |
| Citation | 976 A.2d 1072,410 Md. 91 |
| Parties | Cecil Laroy ROBINSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Stacy W. McCormack, Asst. Public Defender of Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.
Jeremy M. McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, of Baltimore), on brief for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
Appellant, Cecil Robinson, was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Caroline County, on charges of attempted robbery and related offenses. At the outset of the trial, the court learned that members of Appellant's family might have been attempting to intimidate witnesses. After discussing the matter in the presence of counsel and Appellant, the court ordered the members of Appellant's family and at least two other persons to leave the courtroom. The jury ultimately found Appellant guilty of two counts of attempted robbery and other offenses. Sentencing followed in due course.
Appellant noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, asking "[w]hether the trial judge violated the appellant's constitutional right to a public trial when she ordered members of the appellant's family and other spectators to leave the courtroom." In his brief before that court, Appellant contested the court's decision to order those persons out of the courtroom without first undertaking the analysis required by Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984), and its Maryland progeny.
We granted a writ of certiorari before consideration by the Court of Special Appeals, to resolve the merits of the question Appellant presents on appeal. Robinson v. State, 406 Md. 443, 959 A.2d 793 (2008). We cannot reach the merits of the claim, however, because Appellant did not object to the court's order and thereby failed to preserve the claim for appellate review. Moreover, the state of the record precludes review, even were we to consider overlooking the failure to object. We therefore affirm the judgments of conviction.
The events precipitating this appeal arose during voir dire of the prospective jurors. One prospective juror responded to a voir dire question by advising the court that he could not decide the case impartially after overhearing a group of four or five persons discussing the case in the hallway. The prospective juror did not elaborate on what he had heard, but he observed that the persons he overheard discussing the case might have been witnesses at trial. The court dismissed the juror for cause, voir dire continued, and eventually a jury was selected and sworn.
At that time, the court directed the jury to retire to the jury room and ordered the potential witnesses sequestered. The court then addressed the spectators in the courtroom:
Now for those of you who are not potential witnesses, and I'm sort of primarily looking at Mr. Robinson's family and Mr. Arline's[1] family, you're not permitted to leave the courtroom and talk to any of these witnesses about what's going on. And quite frankly in light of what one of the jurors told me that there was a lot of chitchat or chatter out in the lobby about this case, I'm going to ask Deputy North and Mr. Lovelace,[2] you need to watch this. I want you all just staying in the courtroom, so then there won't be any issue about whether you all are chatting or not chatting in front of other people. So just stay in the courtroom and then I'm not going to have any issue. Okay? No, you're going to have to not even take a smoke, okay? Now that means at lunchtime and if I take a break, like a 15 minute break, I mean you can leave the courtroom, but you just have to understand you can't go out in the lobby, you can't go out in front of the courthouse.
The court then took a short recess.
When proceedings resumed, the prosecutor told the court about a conversation one of Appellant's family members had just had with a witness in the prosecutor's office. It is clear from the record that spectators were in the courtroom as the following events unfolded:
The court directed the deputy sheriff to locate Appellant's sister and bring her into the courtroom. As that was happening, the court and prosecutor continued discussing the situation:
The transcript reflects that the prosecutor and defense counsel then had a discussion off the record. Proceedings resumed on the record, with the following:
Appellant's sister was then brought into the courtroom and the judge questioned her about the conversation:
THE COURT: Okay, the young lady with the pink purse, I need you to come on up here please. Okay you can just stand, you can just stand right, right there. What's your name?
Appellant's sister identified herself as Susan Price and gave her age as seventeen years old. The exchange continued:
The court discussed with courtroom personnel the possibility of placing the family spectators in a separate courtroom by themselves, away from the public. The court then advised Ms. Price that she could "go back and sit with your mom."
At that point, Appellant's mother, Ms. Thomas, addressed the court about being forced to leave the courtroom:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lupfer v. State Of Md..
...at trial. The failure to do so bars the appellant from obtaining review of the claimed error, as a matter of right. Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 103, 976 A.2d 1072 (2009). Here, the questions propounded by the prosecutor were designed to elicit testimony about appellant's opportunity to t......
-
State v. Beskurt
...State, 268 Ga.App. 568, 571, 602 S.E.2d 312 (2004); State v. Loyden, 2004–1558 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/05); 899 So.2d 166;Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 976 A.2d 1072 (2009) (stating that the fact structural error is involved does not mandate appellate review); Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. ......
-
Wash v. Sublett
...Hunt v. State, 268 Ga.App. 568, 571, 602 S.E.2d 312 (2004); State v. Loyden, 899 So.2d 166, 179 (La.App. 3 Cir.2005); Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 976 A.2d 1072 (2009) (stating that the fact structural error is involved does not mandate appellate review); Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. ......
-
Malarkey v. State
...to interpose a timely objection at trial.'" Taylor, 381 Md. at 614, 851 A.2d 551 (citation omitted). See also Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111, 976 A.2d 1072, 1084 (2009); Brown v. State, 409 Md. 1, 9, 971 A.2d 932 (2009); Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485, 505, 947 A.2d 74 (2008). The cas......
-
Chapter 14 PRESERVATION AND ISSUE SELECTION
...an issue for appellate review.") (cleaned up) (quoting multiple cases).[43] Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1, 22 (2013) (quoting Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 103-04 (2009)); see also Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 246 Md. App. 286, 307 (2020) (quoting Ray and Robinson for sa......
-
Chapter 27 CRIMINAL APPEALS IN MARYLAND—THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE
...plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court").[41] Md. Rule 4-323(c).[42] Robinson (Cecil) v. State, 410 Md. 91, 103, 976 A.2d 1072, 1079 (2009) (quoting State v. Bell, 334 Md. 178, 189, 638 A.2d 107, 113 (1994)). [43] Sydnor v. State, 133 Md. App. 173......
-
Preservation of Issues for Appeal
...decided by, the trial court. Otherwise, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. Md. Rule 8-131(a); see, e.g., Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 103-06 (2009) (denial of public trial not objected to and, therefore, not preserved for appeal); Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 544 (1999)......
-
Plain Error
...was severely denied; or (g) addressing the issue would promote the orderly administration of justice. Md. Rule 8-131(a); Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 (2009); Jones v. State, 379 Md. 704, 714-15 (2004); Conyers v. State, 354 Md. 132, 151 (1999); Rubin v. State, 325 Md. 552, 588 (1992);......