Bruno v. State

CHASANOW, Judge. Petitioner, Michael Anthony Bruno, was tried in the Circuit Court for Harford County on stipulated evidence and was convicted of first degree rape by the trial judge (Whitfíll, J.). Bruno appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of incriminating statements that he made to three different individuals. At a pretrial motions hearing, the trial judge denied a motion to suppress these statements, and they were included as part of the stipulated evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the statements to two of the three individuals were inadmissible, however, it found their admission was harmless in light of the other overwhelming evidence of guilt. We granted certiorari to consider if improperly admitted statements could be deemed harmless error when a defendant, in order to preserve for appeal the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, has pled not guilty and agreed to a trial by stipulated evidence. ⁶⁷⁶ I. Bruno was charged with first degree rape and related offenses. He pled not guilty and initially elected to be tried by a jury. Prior to trial, Bruno sought to suppress several incriminating statements on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The challenged evidence included (1) “the Smith statement”— Bruno’s admission to Norman Smith, a fellow inmate in the Harford County Detention Center, that Bruno had forcibly raped the victim after a night of partying; (2) “the Mack statement” — statements made by Bruno to another inmate, Curtis Mack, expressing his desire to have the rape victim killed; and (3) “the Walters statement” — Bruno’s conversation with Corporal Frank Walters, an undercover officer with the Maryland State Police, in which Bruno repeated his desire to have the rape victim killed and agreed to a price for the murder. The trial court denied Bruno’s motion to suppress all three of these statements. After the denial of his suppression motion, Bruno reaffirmed his not guilty plea; however, he decided to waive his right to a jury trial and agreed to a trial by stipulated evidence. 1 Bruno’s actions were prompted by his desire to preserve the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and to accept the State’s offer that, if he proceeded by stipulated evidence, it would place all charges other than first degree rape on the stet docket. Bruno further benefited from the State’s promise to recommend a sentence of life with all but twenty (20) years suspended, to run concurrently with any sentence Bruno received in a companion case charging him with solicitation to murder. 2 After the judge extensively questioned Bruno and ⁶⁷⁷ determined that he freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and elected to stipulate to the State’s evidence, the State proffered a summary of their witnesses’ testimony. 3 The following dialogue occurred: “[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, in the early morning hours of March 29, 1990, a woman by the name of Kimberly W.,[ 4 ] approximate age 24, was at a bar called Lucky Spirits in Baltimore City.

She met up with a group of five men, among them Michael Bruno, the Defendant. Mr. Bruno was on an, I guess bar hopping would be a good term, with the other men. As the evening progressed, Miss W. became part of the group, and shortly before closing, Miss W. left the bar in Mr. Bruno’s limousine with the five men, including Mr. Bruno. They went on a rather circuitous route, through Baltimore County, ultimately ending up in Harford County.

At some point, two of the men, Chuckie and Ricky Frazier, left the group, leaving Miss W. with Michael Bruno, Robert Ambrose, and Andre Whims. There came a time when Mr. Bruno and/or his companions demanded sexual relations with Miss W. The limousine was parked at the time. Miss W. refused these advances. At that point, Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Whims held down Miss W. and Mr. Bruno started to remove her clothing forcefully.

Miss W. resisted. She was kicking and pushing at them, and telling them to stop. Mr. Bruno obtained an electronic stun gun device that delivers shocks of relatively high voltage of electricity, and shocked her with it on her bare skin numerous times. While she was being held down by his companions and after the weapon, which she perceived to be a dangerous ⁶⁷⁸ and deadly weapon, was used upon her, she submitted, and Mr. Bruno engaged in forceful vaginal intercourse with her forcefully, and against her consent, while the two companions were assisting in subduing her.

Other sexual acts took place, all against her will, and without her consent. There were several acts of sexual intercourse, acts of sodomy, and battery. Ultimately, when the sexual events were over, Mr. Bruno and his companions began to discuss the possibility of having breakfast. Miss W., realizing this would involve going to a place where there were other people, and a place of safety, agreed to do so.

They came to Denny’s in the Fallston area of Harford County. There, she was let out of the vehicle and approached a waitress. The police were summoned. Mr. Bruno and his companions were all arrested.

While in jail, in the Harford County Detention Center, under this charge, pending trial, Mr. Bruno admitted to a fellow inmate by the name of Norman Smith, that he had raped Miss W. He also had a conversation with a fellow inmate by the name of Curtis Mack concerning killing Miss W., the State’s witness. Mr. Mack made arrangements to have Mr. Bruno contact Corporal Frank Walters of the Maryland State Police, who was identified to Mr. Bruno as Tony, a professional hit man who would take care of Miss W. for him. Mr. Bruno contacted Corporal Walters and engaged in a conversation with him, which has been marked as a State’s exhibit. We would ask it be included as an exhibit, the transcript of the conversation, included as an exhibit in the Statement of Facts.

THE COURT: Be accepted. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Thank you. In this conversation Mr. Bruno solicited the murder of Miss W. for a sum of money which was agreed for approximately $1,500. Just to clear it up, I am not sure I precisely phrased it regarding Mr. Mack. At some point Mr. Bruno and Mr. Mack had a conversation regarding Mr. Bruno’s desire to ⁶⁷⁹ kill Kimberly W. Mr. Mack gave the name, phone number, and the name “Tony,” which was Frank Walters of the Maryland State Police, which brings about the transcript we have asked to be included.

The terminating point of the transport of Miss W. in the course of the rape was, of course, Harford County, which, of course, gives us jurisdiction. That would be the Statement of Facts. >■4 >¡4 í¡4 i{4 # 5jC [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, in light of the agreement, if that’s — if the State’s witnesses were to testify in this case, that would be their testimony. Given that, we have no further additions, corrections, deletions, or modifications. THE COURT: Argument as to whether or not the Statement of Facts is sufficient to constitute the offenses charged? [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: We will submit.

THE COURT: Based on the Statement of Facts, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty the Defendant is guilty of First Degree Rape of Kimberly W., and that he had vaginal intercourse with her against her will by use of force, with assistance of others, and the use of a weapon. So, for that reason, a finding of guilty as to Count 1, First Degree Rape, will be entered.” There was a further stipulation to incorporate relevant testimony from the motions hearing regarding Bruno’s statements to Smith, Mack, and Walters. Bruno offered no evidence and called no witnesses to controvert the stipulated testimony, and expressly acknowledged that the credibility of the State’s witnesses was not at issue. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals addressed Bruno’s Sixth Amendment, right-to-counsel challenge to the statements to Smith, Mack, and Walters.

The intermediate appellate court determined that the Smith statement, in which ⁶⁸⁰ Bruno admitted the rape, was properly received because there was “nothing in [the] record to indicate that Smith was in any way a State agent when that statement was made or that he had encouraged or solicited the statement, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the State.” Bruno v. State, 93 Md.App. 501, 515 , 613 A.2d 440, 447 (1992). As for the statements to Mack and Walters concerning Bruno’s desire to kill the rape victim, however, the intermediate appellate court concluded that these were obtained in violation of Bruno’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and thereby inadmissible based on its interpretation of Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), and related cases. Despite its conclusion that the Mack and Walters statements were erroneously admitted in Bruno’s rape trial, the court found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the stipulated evidence, the Court of Special Appeals believed that the erroneously admitted evidence “could not possibly have influenced the [trial] court’s verdict in any way.” Bruno, 93 Md.App. at 517 , 613 A.2d at 448 .

Therefore, the court affirmed Bruno’s rape conviction. Before this Court, Bruno contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred by finding the improperly admitted statements harmless error. First, Bruno asks us to analogize a not guilty plea, together with a stipulation as to the State’s evidence, to a procedure permitted in some jurisdictions called a conditional guilty plea. He further contends that, if we analogize a trial by stipulated evidence to a conditional guilty plea, we should then follow cases that have refused to apply harmless error to an erroneous refusal to suppress evidence followed by a conditional guilty plea.

Those courts have reasoned that there is no way to assess the impact erroneously admitted evidence had upon a defendant’s decision to plead conditionally guilty. See, e.g., People v. Miller, 33 Cal.3d 545, 555-56 , 189 Cal.Rptr. 519, 526-27 , 658 P.2d 1320, 1327-28 (1983); People v. Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 379-80 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 429, 437 , 380 N.E.2d 257, 265 (1978); Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d 440, 445 (7th Cir. 1977); People v. Hill, 12 Cal.3d 731, 768 , 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 421 , 528 P.2d 1, 29 (1974). ⁶⁸¹ The State, however, points out that Maryland has not adopted a conditional guilty plea procedure, and further, Bruno did not plead guilty; therefore, cases dealing with conditional guilty pleas are irrelevant. The State asserts that “the focus of the harmless error analysis should not be on whether the error had any effect on Bruno’s decision to enter into the particular plea, but rather should be on the effect of the erroneously admitted evidence on the decision of the fact-finder.” For reasons we will discuss below, we believe the Court of Special Appeals properly invoked the harmless error rule under the facts of this case. We emphasize that this decision only addresses the propriety of applying harmless error.

Bruno does not challenge the intermediate appellate court’s ruling on the admissibility of “the Smith statement.” In its conditional cross-petition, the State does challenge the ruling on the inadmissibility of the Mack and Walters statements. The State presents the question of “[w]hether the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that evidence that Bruno solicited the murder of the rape victim was inadmissible in his rape trial under Maine v. Moulton [ 474 U.S. 159 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) ].” Because we granted certiorari to review the harmless error issue and because we find that any error would indeed be harmless, we will not address the issue raised in the conditional cross-petition. We will assume, arguendo, the correctness of the Court of Special Appeals with regard to the inadmissibility of Bruno’s statements to Mack and Walters under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

II

We begin our analysis with a discussion of conditional guilty pleas. A conditional guilty plea, where permitted by statute or rule, generally allows a defendant to plead guilty, yet still retain the right to appellate review of certain pretrial motions. As implemented by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant must preserve, in writing, appellate review of the ⁶⁸² adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion when entering his conditional plea of guilt, and court approval as well as the consent of the government are required. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).

If a defendant prevails on appeal, withdrawal of the plea is permitted. Id. The basis for allowing such a plea is that it “conserv[es] prosecutorial, defense and judicial resources ... by permitting the defendant to appeal an adverse pretrial ruling without undergoing a full trial to preserve the point.” United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066, 1072 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174 , 103 S.Ct. 823 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) (citations omitted). See also Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee (pointing out that the conditional guilty plea avoids the waste of resources that occurs when “a defendant who has lost one or more pretrial motions go[es] through an entire trial simply to preserve the pretrial issues for later appellate review”); but see Burns, 684 F.2d at 1072 (“When defendants are allowed to raise on appeal a barrage of claims that are not clearly dispositive of the case, however, the balance of policy considerations is less clear.

The practice is no longer likely to serve the interests of judicial economy. Assuming that the probability of reversal on at least one issue increases as the number of issues appealed increases, broad-ranging conditional guilty pleas will be more likely to lead to an elaborate sequence of plea, appeal, trial and reappeal. Such a sequence hardly conserves the judicial system’s resources.... ”). Bruno directs our attention to cases dealing with conditional guilty pleas in light of his decision to elect an abbreviated form of trial on stipulated evidence.

We recognize that several courts have determined that harmless error should not be applied where there is an improper denial of a suppression motion followed by a conditional guilty plea. For example, in Hill, supra, the Supreme Court of California determined that an appeal from the denial of a suppression motion, expressly authorized by statute after a guilty plea, prevented the court from invoking harmless error when some, but not all, of the evidence should have been suppressed. Id., 12 Cal.3d at 769 , 117 Cal.Rptr. at 421-22 , 528 P.2d at 29-30 . The court de ⁶⁸³ dared that, with such a limited record, an “unacceptable degree of appellate speculation” would result if the appellate court tried to determine, based only on the evidence subject to the suppression motion, the respective strength of the prosecution’s or defense’s case.

Id., 12 Cal.3d at 768 , 117 Cal.Rptr. at 421 , 528 P.2d at 29 . Unsure of whether the defendant would again plead guilty with knowledge that some of the evidence was inadmissible and based on the “magnitude of the consequences of a guilty plea,” the court declined to find that the erroneous refusal to suppress part of the evidence was harmless. Id., 12 Cal.3d at 769 , 117 Cal.Rptr. at 421 , 528 P.2d at 29 . See also Miller, 33 Cal.3d at 553 , 189 Cal.Rptr. at 525 , 658 P.2d at 1326 (following Hill); Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366 , 408 N.Y.S.2d at 435-37 , 380 N.E.2d at 263-65 ; Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d at 445-46 (expressing agreement with Hill).

We first note that the Hill decision has not escaped criticism. In People v. Salazar, 93 Cal.App.3d 912 , 156 Cal.Rptr. 125, 127 (1979), an intermediate California appellate court questioned the soundness of Hill’s apparently absolute rule barring harmless error analysis and applied the doctrine where it could not “conceive of a rational basis for concluding that the [defendant’s] guilty plea was triggered by the erroneous refusal to suppress some of the prosecution’s evidence. ...” See also People v. Carney, 117 Cal.App.3d 36 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 430 , 439 n. 2 (1981) (Staniforth, J., concurring and dissenting) (“In certain factual situations, the blind acceptance of the Hill ... rule leads to an absurd, unnecessary time wasting result.... ”), rev’d, 34 Cal.3d 597 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 500 , 668 P.2d 807 (1983), rev’d, 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985). Moreover, in People v. Ingram, 122 Cal.App.3d 673 , 176 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1981), a California appellate court acknowledged the important distinction, for harmless error purposes, between a conditional guilty plea and a not guilty plea with stipulations. The court noted that the defendant did not plead conditionally guilty as in Hill but “submitted the cause to the trial court on the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing,” and thus the “unacceptable degree of appellate speculation” present in Hill was not a ⁶⁸⁴ concern in light of the more expansive record.

Id., 122 Cal.App.3d at 682 , 176 Cal.Rptr. at 204 . The Ingram court recognized that the harmless error rule would be applicable where the case was submitted based on the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing. Id. Conditional guilty plea cases refusing to apply harmless error analysis after a defendant pleads guilty are inapposite to the instant case.

First, and most important, Bruno did not plead guilty, and thus we are neither concerned with the “magnitude of the consequences of a guilty plea,” nor with how an erroneous refusal to suppress evidence impacted upon a decision to plead “guilty.” By pleading not guilty, Bruno was convicted after a trial, albeit, one based on stipulated evidence. Bruno enjoyed the right to full appellate review, as well as benefited from the State’s sentence recommendation and its decision to place other charges on the stet docket. Unlike a guilty plea, under which the State would be relieved of its burden of proof, Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 158 , 169 A.2d 409, 410 (1961), Bruno’s not guilty plea required the State to present stipulated evidence sufficient to constitute first degree rape or risk an acquittal by the trial judge. See Barnes v. State, 31 Md.App. 25, 28 , 354 A.2d 499, 501 (1976) (Orth, C.J.) (stating that, even in a trial based upon agreed statement of facts, accused must be acquitted if evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction).

Moreover, Bruno had the right to present exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Although Bruno’s counsel declined the opportunity to present a closing argument, the trial judge did ask for any “[ajrgument as to whether or not the Statement of Facts is sufficient to constitute the offenses charged.” As noted by the Supreme Court of California in Bunnell v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 13 Cal.3d 592, 602 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 302, 308 , 531 P.2d 1086, 1092 (1975), “[n]otwithstanding [any bargained-for agreement] or the fact that conviction is a foregone conclusion, a submission of the cause for decision on the [preliminary] transcript is a trial.” (Emphasis added). Bruno’s conviction, based upon stipulated evidence as well as the incorporated relevant portions of the suppression hearing’s testimony, was ⁶⁸⁵ rendered by way of a trial. Because Bruno proceeded on a not guilty plea and preserved rights incident to a trial, we see no reason to modify the harmless error doctrine based on the manner of that trial chosen by the defendant. 5 We are also unpersuaded by those cases finding harmless error inappropriate in conditional guilty plea appeals because they primarily rest upon interpretations of statutes that expressly enable defendants to appeal certain rulings even after entering a guilty plea.

See Hill, 12 Cal.3d at 769 , 117 Cal.Rptr. at 421-22 , 528 P.2d at 29 (construing Cal.Penal Code § 1538.5(m) (West 1982, Cum.Supp.1993)); Salazar, 93 Cal.App.3d 912 , 156 Cal.Rptr. at 127 (“Hill [is], after all, merely [an] interpretation[ ] of the legislative intent behind section 1538.5, subdivision (m)....”); Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366 , 408 N.Y.S.2d at 435-37 , 380 N.E.2d at 263-65 (interpreting statute now codified at N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 710.70(2) (Consol.1986)); Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d at 445-46 , and State v. Monahan, 76 Wis.2d 387 , 251 N.W.2d 421, 426 (1977) (discussing Wis.Stat.Ann. § 971.31(10) (West 1985)). In Jones v. Wisconsin, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that Wisconsin’s statute “encourages guilty pleas” and this objective “is obtained by guaranteeing to the defendant that he will have a full trial in the event that after appeal the state’s evidence is weaker than it appeared at the time of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.” Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d at 445-46 . Similarly, the Supreme Court of California in Hill made clear that its “decision operates to further the Legislature’s intention of encouraging a guilty plea by a defendant whose defense rests on the asserted illegality of a search and seizure.” Hill, 12 Cal.3d at 770 n. 36, 117 Cal.Rptr. at 422 n. 36, 528 P.2d at 30 n. 36. ⁶⁸⁶ Those jurisdictions, “[a]s a matter of state public policy, [legislatively] abandoned the guilty-plea-waiver rule.” State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis.2d 119 , 332 N.W.2d 744, 747 (1983). Maryland has not done so, see Md.Rule 4-242(a), and we are unwilling to judicially create such a plea by equating Bruno’s not guilty plea to a guilty plea and creating an exception to the rule that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects.

In light of this choice, it is unnecessary to further the objectives of a conditional guilty plea by following those decisions that refuse to apply harmless error. 6 Our conclusion that harmless error is applicable to the instant case finds further support in federal court decisions that have criticized conditional guilty pleas. Even prior to the enactment of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), a few federal courts permitted conditional guilty pleas. See discussion in United States v. DePoli, 628 F.2d 779 , 781 n. 1 (2d Cir.1980). Others, however, refused to sanction the conditional plea fearing that, without a full record before it, an appellate court would be forced to deal with issues that “could have been avoided by invocation of the doctrine of harmless error.... ” United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937, 945 (6th Cir.1972).

In Cox , for instance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that, based on a conditional guilty plea, “[w]e are left to conjecture whether the prosecution had additional evidence to present against the defendants.” Id. See also Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee (stating that, “[w]ith respect to the objection ⁶⁸⁷ that conditional pleas circumvent application of the harmless error doctrine, it must be acknowledged that ‘[ajbsent a full trial record, containing all the government’s evidence against the defendant, invocation of the harmless error rule is arguably impossible’ ”) (quoting Comment, Conditioned Guilty Pleas: Post-Guilty Plea Appeal of Nonjurisdictional Issues, 26 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 360, 380 (1978)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, recognized a distinction between a conditional guilty plea and a trial conducted pursuant to a not guilty plea together with “stipulations which expressly and effectively admit sufficient facts to support an adjudication of guilty ... but explicitly reserve[ ] the right to appeal.” United States v. Mendoza, 491 F.2d 534, 536 (5th Cir.1974). Unlike a conditional guilty plea, the latter case provides the “vital facts” upon which to review a trial court’s actions.

See id. at 538 ; see also United States v. Lace, 669 F.2d 46 , 58 n. 7 (2d Cir.) (Newman, J., concurring) (suggesting that, to prevent the use of conditional guilty pleas as “a device to circumvent the harmless error rule ... [w]hen multiple pretrial rulings concerning evidence are to be challenged, one solution would be for the parties to stipulate, for purposes of the conditional guilty plea, to an agreed statement of the admissible evidence apart from the challenged rulings, with withdrawal of the plea permitted only upon an appellate determination that a pre-trial ruling was not only erroneous but prejudicial in light of the stipulated evidence” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 854 , 103 S.Ct. 121 , 74 L.Ed.2d 106 (1982). Thus, we find inapposite those cases holding harmless error inapplicable in an appeal from a conditional guilty plea. Bruno also relies on United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1105 , 102 S.Ct. 2904 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1982), to support the contention that harmless error should not be applied to the inadmissible statements to Mack and Walters in light of Bruno’s agreement to stipulated evidence. In Weber , after unsuccessfully seeking to suppress evidence, the defendants waived a jury trial and submitted to trial by agreed facts, pretrial testimony, and exhibits from the ⁶⁸⁸ suppression hearing.

Id. at 562 . The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that “[¿defendants’ stipulations and waivers were made on the assumption and condition not merely that their right of appeal was preserved, but that the evidence was properly admissible against them. In fairness, this should mean all the evidence.” Id. at 562 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Influenced by conditional guilty plea eases, the Weber court, upon finding some of the evidence inadmissible, held that harmless error could not be applied and granted the defendants a new trial.

For the reasons previously discussed, we decline to follow Weber and refuse to judicially create the functional equivalent of a conditional guilty plea which bars harmless error analysis. 7 III. We continue our discussion by briefly mentioning the effect of a not guilty and guilty plea on a defendant’s right to appellate review. Ordinarily, a defendant is entitled to appellate review after a final judgment in a criminal case. See Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl.Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-301.

By pleading guilty, however, a defendant forfeits any right to a direct appeal, id. § 12-302(e), and ordinarily waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the pro ⁶⁸⁹ ceedings. See Sutton v. State, 289 Md. 359, 365 , 424 A.2d 755, 758-59 (1981); Treadway v. Warden, 243 Md. 680, 682 , 220 A.2d 907, 908 (1966); Deyermond v. State, 19 Md.App. 698, 706 , 313 A.2d 709, 714 (1974) (“[A]ny error in the trial court’s denial of [defendant’s] motion to suppress the evidence was waived by the tender of the plea of guilty ... and its effective acceptance by the court.”). Although Maryland does not authorize a conditional guilty plea, see Md.Rule 4-242(a), defendants have preserved appellate review and avoided the necessity of a full trial by pleading not guilty, and either stipulating to the testimony of the State’s witnesses (i.e., stipulated evidence) or entering into an “agreed statement of facts” (ie., stipulated facts). See, e.g., Polk v. State, 85 Md.App. 648, 650 , 584 A.2d 1274, 1275 (1991); Ward v. State, 52 Md.App. 664, 667 , 451 A.2d 1243, 1245 (1982).

As noted by Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. in his handbook on Maryland evidence law, stipulations of evidence and stipulations of fact “are frequently used as shortcuts to formal proof.” Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook § 1003, at 380 (1989). In Barnes v. State, 31 Md.App. 25, 35 , 354 A.2d 499, 505-06 (1976), Judge Orth, writing as Chief Judge for the Court of Special Appeals, explained the difference between an agreed statement of facts and stipulated evidence as follows: “There is a distinction between an agreed statement of facts and evidence offered by way of stipulation. Under an agreed statement of facts both [the] State and the defense agree as to the ultimate facts. Then the facts are not in dispute, and there can be, by definition, no factual conflict.

The trier of fact is not called upon to determine the facts as the agreement is to the truth of the ultimate facts themselves. There is no fact-finding function left to perform. To render judgment, the court