Trotman v. State, 8, September Term, 2019
| Decision Date | 18 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 8, September Term, 2019,8, September Term, 2019 |
| Citation | 218 A.3d 265,466 Md. 237 |
| Parties | Danny TROTMAN v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Margaret Leah Lanier, Assigned Public Defender (of Ellicott City, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Brenda Gruss, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Sally D. Adkins (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
It is well-established that having the opportunity to participate in jury service is both a right and a responsibility. As Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol., 2016 Supp.) ("CJ") § 8-102(a) states, "[e]ach adult citizen of this State has: (1) The opportunity for jury service; and (2) When summoned for jury service, the duty to serve." (Paragraph breaks omitted).
It is equally well-established that "[a] citizen may not be excluded from jury service due to color, disability , economic status, national origin, race, religion, or sex." CJ § 8-102(b) (emphasis added). Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, generally, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in ... the ... activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. And, CJ § 8-103(b)(3) states in pertinent part:
"[S]ubject to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual is not qualified for jury service if the individual ... [h]as a disability that, as documented by a health care provider's certification, prevents the individual from providing satisfactory jury service[.]" "The [Maryland] Judiciary is committed to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including through providing prospective jurors with an equal opportunity to participate in jury service." Maryland Judiciary, Jury Service: Notice: [Americans with Disabilities Act] Compliance, https://www.mdcourts.gov/juryservice/noticeada [https://perma.cc/TJY2-LWEZ].
This case involves the unfortunate circumstance that in a courthouse in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City a staircase with twenty-five steps was the only way to reach the jury room that accompanied the courtroom that was used for the trial in this case. We must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in excusing for cause four prospective jurors who said that they would have difficulty using1 or were unable to use stairs.
The State, Respondent, charged Sergeant Danny Trotman, Petitioner, a correctional officer of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, with second-degree assault, conspiracy to commit second-degree assault, and misconduct in office. At the start of trial, before the jury panel entered the courtroom, four prospective jurors disclosed to the Jury Commissioner's Office that they would either have difficulty using or be unable to use stairs, and the Jury Commissioner's Office gave that information to the circuit court. The circuit court separately called each of the four prospective jurors to the bench. In each instance, first, the circuit court expressly confirmed that the prospective juror was unable to use stairs; then, the circuit court informed the prospective juror that a staircase with twenty-five steps was the only way to reach the jury room. Ultimately, the circuit court excused the four prospective jurors for cause and directed them to return to the jury assembly room to be available for participation as jurors in another trial. Trotman's counsel objected to the circuit court excusing the four prospective jurors for cause and requested that the circuit court conduct the trial in another courtroom. The circuit court responded that no other courtroom was available, and trial proceeded in the assigned courtroom. The jury found Trotman guilty of two charges. Trotman appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Trotman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari , which this Court granted.
Before us, Trotman contends that the circuit court erred in excusing for cause the four prospective jurors who indicated that they were unable to use stairs. Trotman argues that the circuit court failed to properly exercise its discretion to excuse for cause the four prospective jurors at issue, as it failed to consider potential options for accommodating them. The State responds that, although prospective jurors with disabilities cannot be excluded from jury service across the board, on a case-by-case basis, a trial court may excuse a prospective juror with a disability if the disability would interfere with the performance of the prospective juror's duties.
Guided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Maryland statutes that govern jury service, and relevant case law, we hold that a trial court may not summarily excuse for cause prospective jurors with disabilities; instead, a trial court may excuse a prospective juror for cause on a disability-related ground if no reasonable accommodation is possible, and, at that particular trial, the particular disability would prevent the prospective juror from providing satisfactory jury service. Applying our holding to this case's circumstances, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excusing for cause the four prospective jurors who indicated they would be unable to use the stairs to the jury room.
On the first day of trial, shortly after the jury panel entered the courtroom, during a bench conference, the circuit court stated:
After the circuit court finished questioning individual prospective jurors about their responses to the voir dire questions that the circuit court asked of the jury panel, the following exchange occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Funes v. State
...applicable to an Equal Protection challenge varies depending on the nature of the discrimination alleged. See Trotman v. State , 466 Md. 237, 256 n.8, 218 A.3d 265 (2019) (discussing difference between strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests).2. Admissibility of Fie......
-
State v. Chapman
...appellant cites a Maryland Court of Appeals case that construed a state statute regarding juror qualifications. Trotman v. State , 466 Md. 237, 218 A.3d 265 (2019). In that case, the court construed Maryland "statutes that govern jury service" to preclude a trial court from "summarily excus......
-
State v. Chapman
...that govern jury service" to preclude a trial court from "summarily excus[ing] for cause prospective jurors with disabilities."[5] Id. at 261. The court "a trial court may excuse a prospective juror for cause on a disability-related ground if no reasonable accommodation is possible, and, at......
-
Shelton v. State
... ... Montague v. State , 244 Md.App. 24, 39-40 (2019), ... aff'd , 471 Md. 657 (2020), reconsideration ... denied ... Accord Kidder v ... State , ___Md.___, No. 53, Sept. Term 2020 (filed August ... 4, 2021) (slip op. at 3) ... accord Kidder, supra , slip op. at 3-4; Trotman ... v. State , 466 Md. 237, 240 (2019). Section 8-104 of CJP ... ...