Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 07 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 22,22
• Citation: 350 A.2d 628,276 Md. 521
• Parties: Ramarro Lee SMITH v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 521

276 Md. 521

350 A.2d 628

Ramarro Lee SMITH v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 22.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 7, 1976.

Morgan L. Amaino, Baltimore, for appellant.

Arrie W. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, JJ.

DIGGES, Judge.

The issue presented for our consideration is whether the petitioner in this case was denied his rights to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and by Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Because we conclude that these rights were violated, the petitioner's conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

The petitioner, Ramarro Lee Smith, in a seven-count indictment returned by the grand jury in Montgomery County on October 4, 1972, was charged with rape and related offenses. More than 15 months later, on January 23, 1974, trial commenced in the circuit court of that county before Judge Joseph M. Mathias and a jury. Upon conclusion of the trial on January 28, 1974, Smith was found guilty on five of the counts, including the one charging rape. Sentencing took place on April 16, 1974, and nine days later the petitioner noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. ¹ In an unreported decision, Smith v. State, decided December 27, 1974, that court affirmed the conviction holding inter alia that the trial court did not err when it failed to grant Smith's motion (premised upon an allegation that he had been denied a speedy trial) to dismiss the indictment. We granted certiorari, limiting our review solely to the speedy trial question.

Since, when contemplating this issue, time in relation to events is such a significant consideration, we shall chronicle in detail the incidents which preceded the petitioner's conviction. The crimes with which Smith was charged allegedly occurred on September 15, 1972. He was arrested and incarcerated the following day, and indicted shortly thereafter, on October 4. Two days later, after entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Smith was committed by court order to Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital for examination. The hospital's report, received by Judge Mathias on December 12, 1972, concluded that the petitioner was then competent to stand trial and that he was sane when the crimes allegedly were committed. Although Smith was returned on the 11th of December to the Montgomery County Detention Center to await trial, for no apparent reason his trial was not scheduled to begin until six months later, on June 11, 1973.

During this six-month period the State made no positive efforts to keep itself posted as to the whereabouts of the prosecutrix, Barbara Rae Linn. Thus it was not until June 7, 1973, that the Deputy State's Attorney discovered this complaining witness was no longer in the jurisdiction and consequently the summons which had been issued for her on May 30 could not be served. Realizing that Mrs. Linn's testimony was crucial to the State's case, he telephoned Police Lieutenant Skaife, one of the investigating officers, and requested that the officer immediately attempt to locate the missing witness. Having not heard from the lieutenant by the late afternoon of Friday, the 8th of June, the Deputy State's Attorney advised Circuit Court Judge Shure that he would be unable to proceed with the trial then scheduled to begin on the ensuing Monday morning. An office memorandum prepared by the State's Attorney for his deputy assigned to try the case summarizes a subsequent telephone conversation he had with the judge that same day 'Judge Shure indicat(ed) that he was not going to take the case off the docket, but was going to grant the continuance; that (defense counsel) was going to be in court for the record, but understood that the case should be entitled to a continuance when the witness disappears. The Judge indicated he would like to try to restrict us to 30 days to prepare the case for trial. I indicated we would not be able to if we had to extradite witnesses. He indicated we could dismiss our witnesses, since the case would not be tried on that date.' (Emphasis added.)

Promptly following the conversation referred to in this memorandum, the State filed a formal motion for a continuance and advised its remaining witnesses that the case would not be tried on June 11, but would be rescheduled for a subsequent date. Still later that Friday afternoon, Lieutenant Skaife was notified that on Monday morning (June 11), though a formal hearing was necessary, the State's request for a continuance would be granted.

In what might be termed an unexpected turn of events, Mrs. Linn, having learned of the lieutenant's efforts to contact her, telephoned him from Mississippi that same Friday, in the evening, between 6:00 and 7:00 p. m. Although the prosecutrix indicated she was willing to appear and testify on Monday, the police officer informed her the State had already requested a continuance and that the trial would be set for another date. At the time of the June 11 hearing on the motion for a continuance, however, none of the participants in the hearing was aware of the fact that Mrs. Linn had been located. At that hearing counsel for Smith objected to the granting of a continuance, asserting that the State had had ample time to determine the whereabouts of its complaining witness and that he was then ready to proceed with the trial. He made oral motions to dismiss the indictment for lack of a speedy trial, for a speedy trial, and for release of his client on bond. Judge Shure, without specifically ruling on the petitioner's two speedy trial motions, granted the requested continance, although in doing so he noted in his own handwriting on the face of the order that 'the Court is aware of the motion of defendant for a speedy trial,' and by separate order directed that Smith be released on bond.

Upon learning that Mrs. Linn had been located and was willing to testify, the Deputy State's Attorney, on June 14, 1973, requested the assignment office to reschedule the case for trial as soon as possible. However, it was not until July 20, 1973, that the assignment office advised the parties that the trial had been reset for November 15. Alleging principally that his mental condition had deteriorated significantly since June 11 and that he was now unable to aid in his own defense, the petitioner filed another motion, on November 7, 1973, to dismiss his indictment on the ground that his right to a speedy trial had been denied. At the hearing on this motion held before Judge Mathias on November 14, Dr. David A. Lanham, a psychiatrist who had seen Smith frequently since November 12, 1972, for evaluation and treatment, testified that the petitioner's condition had worsened to the extent that he was unable to hold employment and also expressed doubt that Smith could at that time assist in his own defense. Confronted with this testimony, Judge Mathias recommitted the petitioner to Perkins Hospital, ordering it to complete and submit to the court a reevaluation within 14 days, and deferred ruling on the dismissal motion until the time of trial. Following a one-hour examination of the petitioner on November 26, the acting superintendent of the hospital reported to the court that in his opinion Smith's mental condition had improved substantially during the past year and that he was 'presently able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense.'

At a point undisclosed by the record, some time between November 14 and December 4, 1973, the trial was rescheduled to commence on January 3, 1974. However, because the principal investigating officer was to be out of the country on military assignment from December 16, 1973, to January 7, 1974, the State, on December 4, 1973, requested an additional continuance. The court, notwithstanding the petitioner's objection and renewed motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, granted the continuance and the trial was reset for the 23rd of January.

Finally, more than 16 months after arrest and 15 months after indictment, the petitioner received his day in court. At his trial which was conducted on January 23, 24 and 28, Smith was found guilty and his speedy trial motions were denied. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals, with Judge Davidson dissenting, concluded that, although the delay was of such duration that it 'did reach constitutional dimensions,' Smith's right to a speedy trial had not been violated.

Before demonstrating why we conclude these facts indicate that the petitioner was denied the prompt trial guaranteed him by both the State and Federal Constitutions, we will briefly discuss the interplay between these two constitutional provisions. Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights mandates '(t)hat in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right . . . to a speedy trial . . ..' Similarly, the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that '(i)n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial . . ..' As pointed out by Judge Smith for this Court in Erbe v. State, 276 Md. 541, 350 A.2d 640 (1976) (decided January 7, 1976), Judge Alfred S. Niles, in his authoritative treatise, Maryland Constitutional law 13 (1915), divides the articles of the Declaration of Rights into four categories and places Article 21 in 'Class C,' denominated 'Limitations on the power of the State similar to those lim-Constitution for the Federal Government.' When construing 'Class C' articles, Judge Niles concludes that

'the decisions of the United States (Supreme) Court, in reference to the corresponding provisions of the Federal Constitution, are adopted by (the Maryland) court as authority which is very persuasive, although...