Couser v. State

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John H. Couser, the applicant, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Dorf, J.) of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. He was committed to the custody of the Division of Correction for a period of twenty years consecutive to a sentence he was then serving. We affirmed the Criminal Court in Couser v. State, 36 Md. App. 485 , 374 A.2d 399 (1977), aff'd, 282 Md. 125 , 383 A.2d 389 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 852 (1978).

On January 7, 1981, Couser filed a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (Art. 27, § 645A — 645J). After a hearing, relief was denied, and this application for leave to appeal ensued. The applicant advances two reasons why he thinks we should grant his application, namely: 1. He was denied the right to attend a bench conference where jury voir dire was discussed; and 2. the State, by failing to disclose a potential witness, "effectively denied him the right to an informed comparative rejection.” I. The applicant asserts that he was not present at a bench conference during which the trial judge questioned an already impaneled juror so as to determine the juror’s possible bias.

The State, for reasons not explained in the ⁸³ record, failed to make a pre-trial disclosure that a Miss Sinceray Jones would be called as a State witness. After the jury was impaneled, the State’s Attorney realized he would call Miss Jones. He promptly informed the trial judge and defense counsel of his intention. As soon as the trial judge realized that Miss Jones would be called as a witness, he halted the trial proceedings and conducted further voir dire at the bench.

One juror stated that he had had some previous contact with Miss Jones, but said that it would not influence his decision. Appellant’s counsel declared that he had no objection to having that juror continue. No other juror had had any previous contact with Miss Jones. Couser v. State, 36 Md. App. at 497 , 374 A.2d at 405 .

The hearing judge held that an impromptu voir dire conference was a "stage of the trial” at which the applicant had the right to be present. "[A] defendant’s presence is required at proceedings conducted for the purpose of determining a juror’s post-impaneling disqualification.” Tisdale v. State, 41 Md. App. 149, 156 , 396 A.2d 289, 293-94 (1979). Having determined that the bench conference was a "stage of the trial” which applicant had a right to attend, the hearing judge, relying upon this Court’s opinion in Noble v. State, 46 Md. App. 154 , 416 A.2d 757 (1980), then ruled that the applicant had waived his right to attend the conference by virtue of his "inaction.” Subsequent to the hearing judge’s ruling in this case, the Court of Appeals issued a series of decisions that substantially altered the law with respect to the right of an accused to be present at various stages of trial. Noble v. State, 293 Md. 549 , 446 A.2d 844 (1982); Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201 , 438 A.2d 1301 (1981); and State v. Magwood, 290 Md. 615 , 432 A.2d 446 (1981).

The Court of Appeals, in the Noble, Williams, and Magwood triology, has announced three questions that must be answered before a post conviction hearing judge may ⁸⁴ properly grant relief because of the petitioner’s absence from a "stage of the trial.” The three questions are: 1. Did the defendant validly waive the right to be present? 2. Was the violation of the right harmless error? 3. Was the impropriety corrected?

If the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, there is no need to answer 2 or 3, and relief must be denied. Should the answers to questions 1 and 3 be in the negative, but the answer to question 2 be in the affirmative, relief must be denied. Where the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, but the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, relief must be denied. It follows that in order for a petitioner to obtain post conviction relief when the basis of the action is absence from a "stage of the trial,” answers to the three questions must indicate that there was no waiver, and that any error, absent a waiver or correction, was not harmless.

For the guidance of hearing judges, we expound upon waiver, harmless error, and correction of impropriety as they are applied to a "stage of the trial.” (1) Waiver. The Court, in Williams v. State, supra, set forth the rule for determining waiver of the right to be present. Actually, the Court established two distinct rules, one applicable to trials completed before December 28, 1981, 1 and a different rule for trials in process or begun after December 28, 1981. 2 The rules are: A.