Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 46,46 |
| Citation | 382 A.2d 1053,281 Md. 640 |
| Parties | Robert Michael WILSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Orrin J. Brown, III, Ellicott City, for appellant.
Bruce C. Spizler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.
We hold, contrary to the decision of the Circuit Court for Carroll County, and in accord with the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, that the prosecution of Robert Michael Wilson by the State of Maryland for crimes he is alleged to have committed in May 1971 is not precluded by the speedy trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In so holding, however, we bear in mind, as we emphasized in Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 7, 367 A.2d 1 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916, 97 S.Ct. 2177, 53 L.Ed.2d 225 (1977), that "(a) defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty . . .." Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 527, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2190, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). See Epps v. State, 276 Md. 96, 118, 345 A.2d 62 (1975). It follows, therefore, that the State may not excuse delay in bringing an accused to trial merely because he is incarcerated for other offenses in this or other jurisdictions. As the Chief Judge of this Court observed in dissenting in Jones, the result reached by the majority "should serve as a bitter lesson to prosecutors and judges throughout the State not to risk playing Russian roulette with the public's right to have criminal defendants brought to the bar of justice on a timely basis." Id. 279 Md. at 22, 367 A.2d at 14 (Murphy, C. J., dissenting). It is manifest that Wilson was not brought to trial with commendable dispatch, and we do not suggest that he was. As we shall see, it is primarily because of certain affirmative actions on the part of Wilson himself, resulting in a judicial order preventing trial during a period of the delay, which tips the balance so as to permit prosecution. Only the unique circumstances of this case lead to the conclusion that the failure of the State to effect an earlier trial did not violate the constitutional guarantee.
Wilson was arrested in Carroll County, Maryland on 26 May 1971. On 24 January 1972 six true bills (indictments nos. 3356 to 3361, inclusive) were filed in the Circuit Court for Carroll County presenting that on 26 May 1971 he committed five offenses of assault with intent to murder certain police officers, a burglary and fourteen other crimes arising out of those offenses. On 30 October 1975 all of the indictments were dismissed by order of the Circuit Court for Carroll County upon Wilson's motion alleging that he was denied a speedy trial. On direct appeal by the State, the Court of Special Appeals vacated the order and remanded the case for trial. State v. Wilson, 35 Md.App. 111, 371 A.2d 140 (1977). We granted Wilson's petition for a writ of certiorari. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
The federal constitutional dictate for a speedy trial is simply set out: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial . . . ." U.S.Const. Amend. VI. However, in the decade since the Supreme Court of the United States declared in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-226, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967), that the speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, that guarantee has spawned some 144 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the appellate courts of this State. 1 The reason for the plethora of cases on the issue is readily apparent. Although the guarantee is plainly stated, and the factors to be considered in determining whether it has been violated have been firmly established, each case turns on its own particular facts. The infinite variety of circumstances bearing on the question and the vagaries of human conduct place each case in a unique factual posture, so that no case controls another as factually apposite.
The sanction for denial of the right to a speedy trial is severe-dismissal of the charge. 2 Thus, in each speedy trial case there is a direct confrontation between the rights of the accused and the rights of public justice. The courts are guided in this determination of which rights shall prevail in a given case by Barker v. Wingo, supra:
"The approach we accept is a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed.
Id. 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2191.
We have accepted these four factors as expressed in Barker, deemed them to be of primary importance and applied them in resolving the speedy trial cases before us. See Jones v. State, 279 Md. at 6, 367 A.2d 1; Erbe v. State, 276 Md. 541, 546-547, 350 A.2d 640 (1976); Smith v. State, 276 Md. 521, 527-528, 350 A.2d 628 (1976); Epps v. State, 276 Md. at 104-109, 345 A.2d 62.
The circumstances leading to the arrest of Wilson are set out in detail in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, State v. Wilson, 35 Md.App. at 132-134, 371 A.2d 140, and narrated in substance in an agreed statement in Wilson's brief pursuant to Maryland Rule 828 g. Suffice it to say that as a result of information received from a confidential informant, Wilson was observed by police officers in flagrante delicto burglarizing a Carroll County residence on 26 May 1971, fired at the officers, escaped, was apprehended later that night and shot during the course of his arrest. The next day he was charged with assault with intent to murder and burglary. We list subsequent events in chronological order.
6 June 1971 Wilson was released on bail. He
---------------- had flown to Maryland from Boston
on the day of the burglary. Upon
being released, he returned to
Massachusetts
August 1971 Doni Crone died. Wilson later
---------------- claimed that she would have
testified that she employed him to
replevy her goods from the residence
he broke and entered
5 August 1971 Wilson was arrested in Massachusetts
---------------- on a charge of accessory after the fact
to manslaughter. Unable to make bail
he was detained in jail pending trial
November 1971 Wilson was brought to Maryland and
---------------- arraigned in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on
charges of conspiracy and interstate
transportation of stolen traveler's
checks. After arraignment, he was
returned to Massachusetts and a
federal detainer placed against him.
January 1972 Wilson was tried and found guilty of
---------------- the Massachusetts charge, sentenced
to 6 1/2 to 7 years and incarcerated
in the Massachusetts Correctional
Institution.
24 January 1972 Six indictments charging Wilson with
---------------- crimes committed in Carroll County
on 26 May 1971 were filed in the
Circuit Court for Carroll County.
6 February 1972 Wilson wrote the attorney representing
---------------- him on the pending federal charges in
Maryland asking if he had filed a motion
for a speedy trial in the State case, and,
if not, requesting that he do so.
29 February 1972 The attorney replied by letter that he did
---------------- not believe that indictments had been
returned. He advised against pressing for
an indictment.
April 1972 Wilson was tried in the United States
---------------- District Court for the District of
Maryland on the federal charges, was
found not guilty on 18 May 1972 and
returned to Massachusetts on 2 June.
12 July 1972 Wilson was brought to Maryland pursuant
---------------- to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum.
13 July 1972 Wilson was arraigned in the United
---------------- States District Court for the District
of Maryland on an indictment
charging interstate transportation of
stolen jewelry. He asked the federal
judge to return him to Massachusetts.
14 July 1972 Pursuant to writs of habeas corpus
---------------- filed 13 July, Wilson appeared before
the Circuit Court for Carroll County
to be arraigned on the State charges.
According to the State's Attorney for
Carroll County, he became aware that
Wilson would be in Maryland on 14
July less than two weeks before.
Immediately prior to the arraignment
Wilson consulted with a public
defender. During the arraignment
Wilson requested that he be
represented by the attorney representing
him on the federal charges. He told
the court that he had no objection to
postponing a conference to make such
arrangement until the next time he was
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gee
... ... See, for example, Brady v. State, 291 Md. 261, 434 A.2d 574 (1981); Wilson v. State, 281 Md. 640, 382 A.2d 1053, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839, 99 S.Ct. 126, 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978); Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 367 A.2d 1 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2177, 53 L.Ed.2d 225 (1977); Erbe v. State, 276 Md. 541, 350 A.2d 640 (1976); Smith v. State, 276 Md. 521, ... ...
-
State v. Werner
... ... State, 214 Md. 143, 152, 132 A.2d 605 (1957) ... 8 Worthen v. State, 42 Md.App. 20, 37-43, 399 A.2d 272 (1979) ... 9 See, e.g., Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (over five years from the date of the offense until the trial); Wilson v. State, 281 Md. 640, 382 A.2d 1053, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839, 99 S.Ct. 126, 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978) (over seven years between the date of the offense and the final appellate orders directing that the initial trial be held). See also, e.g., State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 470 A.2d 1269 (1984), ... ...
-
State v. Frazier
...that unintentional delay caused by "chronic court congestion" is inexcusable and must be weighed against the State. Wilson v. State, 281 Md. 640, 652, 382 A.2d 1053, 1063, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839, 99 S.Ct. 126, 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978); Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 12, 367 A.2d 1, 8-9 (1976),......
-
Stewart v. State, 78
...in Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 367 A.2d 1 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2177, 53 L.Ed.2d 225 (1977) or Wilson v. State, 281 Md. 640, 382 A.2d 1053 (1978).9 The judge was of the same mind after hearing further from defense counsel on the point. Although he found defense counsel......