Bruce v. State

Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. According to Bernard Schwartz in The American Heritage History of the Law in America at 33 (1974), the late John ⁶⁸⁴ Adams, in speaking of his oft-criticized, but highly successful defense of the British troops charged with the killings in the Boston Massacre, opined: “I have no hesitation that Council [sic] ought to be the very last thing that an accused person ... [should lack] in a free society.” Indeed, the right to counsel was thought of so strongly by this country’s founding fathers that they provided in the Sixth Amendment, a part of “that classic inventory of human rights, the Bill of Rights”, 1 that “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” It has been over two hundred years since John Adams uttered his words relative to the right to counsel, but the question of an accused’s having counsel at trial still plagues us. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 , 83 S. Ct. 792, 93 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 805 , 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963); Manning v. State, 237 Md. 349 , 206 A. 2d 563 (1965); State v. Diggs, 24 Md. App. 681 , 332 A. 2d 283 (1975); Guarnera v. State, 20 Md. App. 562 , 318 A. 2d 243 (1974); Taylor v. State, 20 Md. App. 404 , 316 A. 2d 296 (1974); English v. State, 8 Md. App. 330 , 259 A. 2d 822 (1969). The case now before us had its origin in Woodlawn, Baltimore County, on the evening of June 24, 1974.

At that time a County Police officer observed four men in the rear of the Holiday Inn. Paul Everette Bruce, the appellant, was identified by the officer as one of the four men, and more particularly, the man who was the driver of the motor vehicle in which the four left the area. It was later ascertained that a television set had been stolen from the Holiday Inn. An investigation by the police led to charges being lodged against the appellant for “outhouse” breaking. 2 Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 32.

When Bruce was arraigned in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on August 29,1974, the following colloquy occurred: ⁶⁸⁵ “THE COURT: Paul Bruce and Leroy Griffin. Which one is Paul Bruce? BRUCE: lam. THE COURT: How old are you, Mr. Bruce?

BRUCE: Twenty-nine. THE COURT: And, Mr. Griffin, how old are you? GRIFFIN: Thirty-one. THE COURT: Have you gotten a copy of the charges against you?

BRUCE: Yes, sir. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you understand what you’re charged with? BRUCE: Right.

GRIFFIN: Yes. THE COURT: Breaking into the Holiday Inn building on Belmont Avenue, western part of Baltimore County, and stealing a color television set, a twenty-one inch Westinghouse. The charge is breaking and entry of the Holiday Inn room and stealing a television set. Do you have a lawyer, Mr. Bruce?

BRUCE: Not now. THE COURT: Do you work? BRUCE: I’m in school. THE COURT: Where do you go to school?

BRUCE: RETS Electronics School, Russell Street. THE COURT: How about you, Mr. Bruce, who do you live with? BRUCE: Live with my wife. THE COURT: She work?

BRUCE: Yes, she does. THE COURT: Why haven’t you gotten a lawyer? BRUCE: I’m supposed to take a polygraph test September the 3rd. ⁶⁸⁶ THE COURT: Who told you that? BRUCE: Officer Snyder and Hopkins.

MR. SAUER [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Your Honor, that test was scheduled for July the 1st, the defendant failed to appear. BRUCE: I was in traffic court that day. THE COURT: Your address 3503 Plateau Avenue?

BRUCE: Yes, it is. THE COURT: You’re 4114 Bell? GRIFFIN: Yes. THE COURT: The police must have grave doubts as to the guilt of Paul Bruce if they’re still talking in terms of giving him a lie detector test.

Whose idea was that, does that file reflect? MR. SAUER: I’ll look, your Honor. THE COURT: Whose idea was it about this lie detector test?

BRUCE: Officer Hopkins and Detective Sergeant — I don’t know his last name. THE COURT: Well, I can’t see much excuse for Griffin not getting a lawyer, but, I think that if the police were volunteering to give me a lie detector test which might very well lead to the abandonment of the charge against me I don’t know whether I’d rush out and get a lawyer. You have a car? BRUCE: Yes, ’74 Oldsmobile.

THE COURT: Where did you get the money? You’re going to RETS? BRUCE: My wife and I got it through the Community Action Agency in Baltimore. THE COURT: You got a car through the Community — BRUCE: No, my wife is working, she’s a psychiatric nurse.

THE COURT: Well, you both have to get your own ⁶⁸⁷ lawyers. You’ve gotten copies of the charges against you, you both understand what you’re charged with. The Court rules that as long as each one of you have a 1974 automobile and that you’re not eligible for a lawyer at the taxpayer’s expense you’ll have to get your own lawyer. BRUCE: But, your Honor, can I say something?

If my innocence can be proven on the 3rd of September why should I get a lawyer? THE COURT: Fine, if it’s proved, if the State finds out that you’re innocent on the 3rd of September then you won’t need a lawyer, but, if you don’t receive exoneration, if they don’t drop the charge against you and it comes to trial you may need a lawyer and if you do that’s your problem, you’re going to have to get one. All I’m telling you is that if there’s to be a lawyer to represent you you’re the one going to have to get it, not the Public Defender. The Public Defender will not get you a lawyer and their regulations wouldn’t permit it.” Subsequently, Bruce appeared before another judge on September 27,1974.

At that time the following transpired: “THE COURT: . .. Are you Paul Everette Bruce? BRUCE: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Where is your lawyer?

BRUCE: I don’t have one yet. I haven’t retained one. THE COURT: Do you want to represent yourself ? BRUCE: No. THE COURT: Well, your trial is going to be called.

BRUCE: Well, Your Honor, as I told [the judge], I was not employed. I was in electronics school and it is a federally funded program. I don’t have a job. I am just going to school.

THE COURT: What did you say? Would you repeat that, please? ⁶⁸⁸ MR. BRUCE: That I am in electronics school and it is a federal funded program and they pay you as you go to school. That is the only employment that I had.

THE COURT: He told you you had to employ counsel? BRUCE: Yes, because I was driving a new car. THE COURT: You have not employed counsel so you are ready to go to trial, now; are you not? BRUCE: No, sir.

I am going to try to, my wife and I, to get the money to get an attorney. THE COURT: But, we gave you an opportunity, both of you, to employ counsel. So, you had your Constitutional Right to counsel. You chose not to hire one.

Are you ready to proceed? BRUCE: Yes, but I want to retain [counsel]. THE COURT: Well, you have already had an opportunity. BRUCE: I didn’t have the money then.

THE COURT: Well, that was determined at the hearing of August 29.... BRUCE: Yes, but my wife wouldn’t be able to get a loan until maybe two weeks from now. THE COURT: You have already been given a month. BRUCE: Yes, but she has to get it through the Credit Union.

She has her card. THE COURT: Yes, but neither one of you notified the State’s Attorney and he has his witnesses here today ready for trial. BRUCE: I never even got a summons to come to Court today. THE COURT: You knew it would be assigned for trial.

BRUCE: Yes, sir, I knew but I never got a summons. ⁶⁸⁹ THE COURT: Well, we can proceed with trial. You both seem to be intelligent young men. BRUCE: Your Honor, I would like to ask for a jury trial if it is possible. THE COURT: I beg your pardon?

BRUCE: I would like to ask for a jury trial if it is possible. THE COURT: Well, I have not gotten down to that point yet. I am trying to settle the point of counsel. After hearing all of the information, what does the State wish to do?

MR. SAUER: Well, Your Honor, the State is