Green v. State

Lowe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 7th, 1973, appellant was tried and convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. He was sentenced by presiding Judge Ralph W. Powers to twelve years. On this appeal, appellant alleges the lower court erred in: 1) Denying appellant twenty peremptory challenges to the jury panel; 2) Denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial; 3) Refusing appellant’s instruction that the jury verdict must be unanimous.

Seventh Circuit Rule 741 a provides that, in the event a defendant who is entitled to twenty peremptory challenges to prospective jurors does not file a statement signifying his intention to exercise his right between the tenth and fifth calendar days before the date set for trial, he waives that right. The Rule concludes “for good cause shown the court may waive the requirements of this rule.” Appellant was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges by virtue of his penal exposure as charged. Md. Rule 746 a 1; Md. Code, Art. 51, § 15. Appellant’s counsel failed to file the required statement.

He advised the court that he had not been familiar with the local rule. He stated that his failure to become cognizant of ⁶⁸⁵ it should not be permitted to deprive the appellant of his rights. He contended that his unfamiliarity with the local rule was “good cause shown” to permit the judge to lift the restriction imposed by Rule 741 a. Judge Powers did not agree and denied the twenty peremptory strikes.

This court fully recognizes that the peremptory challenges to which an accused is entitled by virtue of Rule 746 a 1 represent an important right vital to the conduct of a criminal case in this State. Cook v. State, 18 Md. App. 395, 400 . However, varying local conditions create diverse procedural problems which require certain restrictions upon the exercise of such rights. Consequently, each circuit has the responsibility to impose rules, consistent with state rules, to alleviate local problems.

Md. Rule 1 f. This court has upheld a local rule limiting the right to elect a jury trial to fifteen days after arraignment and held that there was no abuse of discretion in declining to waive the rule, although the rule explicitly permitted the court such discretion. Walter v. State, 4 Md. App. 373, 378 . In Cole v. State, 12 Md. App. 379, 382 , a similar rule was sustained, but we held that the court’s discretion was abused under the circumstances of that case.

Both cases demonstrate that a constitutional right may be limited by state procedural rules and'restricted further by local rule. It follows, therefore, that a statutory right defined by state rule may also be subject to time restrictions imposed by local rule. Appellant fires a Parthian dart. He argues that the local rule is not numbered and arranged identically to the pertinent state rule.

Md. Rule 1 f 1 calls for circuit wide rules to have a numbering system and arrangement “consistent with” the Maryland Rules. Such consistency exists in the rules of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. There is no requirement that they be identically numbered. The court properly concluded that counsel’s failure to apprise himself of the rules of the circuits wherein he chooses to practice was not “good cause” to waive them.

To permit self-flagellation and confession of a lack of familiarity with the rules to