State v. Hart
Decision Date | 19 August 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 74, Sept. Term, 2015,74, Sept. Term, 2015 |
Citation | 449 Md. 246,144 A.3d 609 |
Parties | State of Maryland v. Kenneth Hart |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Sarah Page Pritzlaff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner
Argued by Mathew M. Bryant (Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., Greenbelt, MD; Thomas C. Mooney, Law Offices of Thomas C. Mooney, Upper Marlboro, MD), on brief, for Respondent
Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; Battaglia,* Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts and Hotten, JJ.
In this case, we address a defendant's right to be present at trial as it pertains to communications with a jury foreperson during the deliberation phase of a trial as well as a trial court's declaration of a mistrial on the ground of manifest necessity. Kenneth Hart (“Hart”), the defendant, was present throughout the two-day trial. On the second day of trial, after closing arguments and the administration of jury instructions, jury deliberations began at 7 p.m. After approximately three and a half hours of deliberation, the trial court received a jury note. The judge informed the prosecutor and defense counsel of the communication, and made arrangements for the sheriffs to bring Hart, who was in custody, to the courtroom. While they were waiting for Hart to arrive, defense counsel requested a “preview” of the content of the jury note. The note indicated that the jury was deadlocked on a particular count and asked for guidance. Shortly thereafter, the judge was informed that Hart had been transported to a hospital due to a medical emergency. After the judge discussed the note with the prosecutor and defense counsel, the court summoned the jury foreperson to discuss the nature of the deadlock. Although Hart was not present, and despite objections from defense counsel, the judge accepted a partial verdict from the jury. Hart was found guilty on three counts. The trial court then declared a mistrial on the perceived deadlocked count on the basis of manifest necessity.
At a post-trial hearing, the trial court recognized its error in receiving the partial verdict in Hart's absence, and ordered a new trial for the counts on which Hart had been convicted. The trial judge concluded, however, that there was manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, and denied defense counsel's motion to dismiss the deadlocked count.
For the reasons explained below, we disagree with the entry of a mistrial on the perceived deadlocked count. We hold that the trial court erred when it responded to the jury note without first conducting an adequate inquiry into the voluntariness of Hart's absence from the court proceedings. Furthermore, the trial judge erred in prematurely declaring a mistrial—an extraordinary remedy—without first considering reasonable alternatives to the declaration, because Hart was involuntarily absent. These errors were not harmless, and resulted in prejudice to Hart. Because manifest necessity did not exist, under the unique facts of the case, a retrial on the particular count is barred on the grounds of double jeopardy.
As a result of a traffic stop, Hart was found to be in possession of controlled dangerous substances, including heroin, cocaine, and phencyclidine (“PCP”). Hart was indicted on several counts, which resulted in a two-day jury trial. On May 19, 2014, the trial commenced in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. After the State concluded its case-in-chief, Hart did not present any evidence, and rested his case. The trial court's instructions to the jury included the modified Allen charge on the jury's duty to deliberate.1 Four charges were submitted to the jury: Count 1: possession of heroin with intent to distribute; Count 2: possession of heroin; Count 3: possession of cocaine; Count 4: possession of PCP. At approximately 7 p.m., the jury began deliberations; a deputy sheriff took Hart into custody and escorted him to a holding area.
At 10:21 p.m., the trial court received a written note from the jury. The judge summoned the prosecutor and defense counsel, and arranged for Hart to be brought to the courtroom. After a period of time, the court was still waiting for Hart's arrival. While the bailiff contacted the sheriffs to ascertain Hart's whereabouts, the following conversation ensued between the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel:
The jury note stated: Meanwhile, continued efforts were made to have the sheriffs escort Hart to the courtroom. At approximately 10:48 p.m., the judge was informed that Hart was absent due to a medical emergency:
The judge then asked the prosecutor and defense counsel if they had any questions for the foreperson. Each replied in the negative, and the foreperson returned to the jury room. The following exchange then took place:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sabisch v. Moyer, 6, Sept. Term, 2019
...... for a writ of habeas corpus, providing: A person committed, detained, confined, or restrained from his [or her] lawful liberty within the State for any alleged offense or under any color or pretense or any person in his [or her] behalf, may petition for the writ of habeas corpus to the end ...Blatter , 458 Md. 698, 717-18, 183 A.3d 223, 235 (2018) (cleaned up). See also State v. Hart , 449 Md. 246, 264, 144 A.3d 609, 619 (2016) ("[W]here an order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or ......
-
State v. Baker
...retried. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.Hubbard , 395 Md. at 92–93, 909 A.2d 270 ; see also State v. Hart , 449 Md. 246, 278, 144 A.3d 609 (2016) ("Prior to the declaration of a mistrial, the trial court was obliged to explore reasonable alternatives."). In summary, ......
-
Sayles v. State
...of an instruction in which the jury was specifically asked to conciliate their differences and reach a verdict." State v. Hart , 449 Md. 246, 255 n.1, 144 A.3d 609 (2016) (quotation omitted).9 Our decision to exercise our discretion to consider issues that may be unpreserved as to certain a......
-
Morton v. Schlotzhauer, 72, Sept. Term, 2015
...... This case is about the procedural and substantive effect that a bankruptcy proceeding may have on the prosecution of a personal injury claim in State court. Our disposition of this case is compelled by the respect we accord a decision of the federal Bankruptcy Court and by our own injunction to ......