Miller v. State

Liss, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, Terry W. Miller, was charged by indictments on November 20, 1980, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore with robbery with a deadly weapon and related counts, kidnapping and a related count, attempted sex offense in the first degree and related counts, sex offense in the first degree and related counts and rape in the first degree and related counts. All of the charges involved an incident which occurred on October 28, 1980. Trial before a jury began on June 16,1981, and on June 19, the jury returned verdicts of guilty of rape in the first degree, robbery with a deadly weapon, kidnapping and attempted sexual offense in the first degree.

Sentences were imposed and appellant filed a motion for new trial which was denied. Appellant then filed this appeal, raising the three following issues: (1) Was the trial judge in error when he refused to grant the appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that he had been denied his right to a trial by an impartial jury when the evidence clearly disclosed that young adults had been systematically excluded from the jury panel? ³ (2) Did the trial judge err in refusing to dismiss the indictments against the appellant since the appellant was not tried within one hundred eighty (180) days of the first appearance of his attorney as mandated by Rule 746? (3) Did the trial judge err when he allowed a witness to testify after the name of the witness had not been furnished to the appellant as required by Rule 741? (2) We shall consider the issues out of sequence because such a procedure will result in a more orderly disposition of the questions raised by this appeal.

The denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial is, we believe, an appropriate beginning point for our consideration of this case. The chart below sets forth the relevant dates and events to be considered on the motion to dismiss. Dale. November 6, 1980 Appellant arrested.

November 20, 1980 Indictment filed. December 11, 1980 Appearance of defense counsel; appellant arraigned. March 9, 1981 Scheduled trial date. Case placed on move list.

March 10, 1981 Trial postponed because a court was not available. March 18, 1981 Hearing before Judge Karwacld in the presence of appellant and his counsel; trial administratively postponed. June 8, 1981 assigned as trial date. June 8, 1981 Case not reached, and placed on move list.

June 9, 1981 Hearing on motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. ⁴ Maryland Rule 746 provides as follows: a. General Provision. Within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 723, a trial date shall be set which shall be not later than 180 days after the appearance or waiver of counsel or after the appearance of defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 723. b. Change of Trial Date.

Upon motion of a party made in writing or in open court and for good cause shown, the county administrative judge or a judge designated by him may grant a change of trial date. In State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310 , 403 A.2d 356 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that the 120 [180] day trial date requirement of Rule 746 was mandatory and absent extraordinary [good] cause, "dismissal of the criminal charges is the appropriate sanction.” 1 285 Md. at 318 . Appellant claims that he was not tried within the 180 days as required by Rule 746 and since good cause for the failure was not shown, all of the charges against him should have been dismissed. He further contends that if June 9,1981 (the date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss), is considered as the trial date, he was not brought to trial until 181 days after the appearance of counsel.

We do not reach the same result in our computation of the time involved. We find appellant was brought to trial on the 180th day after the appearance of counsel on December 11, 1980. Apparently, appellant counted the first day of the appearance of counsel as the initial date for the beginning of the tolling of the expiration of the mandated time. Maryland Rule 8, however, excludes that daté from the time period.

The rule provides: ⁵ In computing any period of time prescribed by these Rules or order of a court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default, after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. When the case was called for trial on June 9, 1981, there were a number of pre-trial motions which remained to be ruled upon. No motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial had been filed under Maryland Rule 746. The trial judge then heard arguments on appellant’s oral motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was offered for the first time at the pre-trial hearing.

The record indicates that the following factual information was adduced at the hearing. The appellant was arrested on November 6, 1980. The case was first scheduled for trial on March 9, 1981. Both the defense and the State were ready for trial on that date.

Witnesses had been summoned and were available. It then developed that no court was available for trial. A hearing was held before Judge Karwacki, the Administrative Judge of the Supreme Bench, and appellant’s counsel requested that the case be placed on the "move list.” This procedure is often utilized when cases scheduled for trial are not reached because of the overcrowded dockets. The cases are assigned to a waiting list or "move list”, and as courts become available the next case on the "move list” is assigned to a specific court and judge for trial.

Cases on the "move list” receive priority over other regularly scheduled cases assigned for trial in the numerous criminal courts now operating in Baltimore City. The case was assigned to the "move list” but several days later Judge Karwacki postponed the case to June 8, 1981, which was within the 180 day period mandated by the Hicks rule. On March 18, the Administrative Judge held a hearing in chambers at which the prosecutor, appellant and his counsel were present. He ruled from the bench that because of the magnitude of the "move list”, and the impossibility of keeping all witnesses waiting for weeks, perhaps months, to get this case to trial, in his opinion the record demonstrated ⁶ "extraordinary cause” to justify a postponement of the June 8th trial date.

No objection to this ruling was made by either party. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the postponement was justified by "good cause” and that our decision in State v. Lattisaw, 48 Md. App. 20 , 425 A.2d 1051 , cert. denied, 290 Md. 717 (1981), is controlling. In Lattisaw , we held that where a defendant consents to a trial date beyond the 180 day expiration of limitations, he waives his rights to the sanctions imposed by the Hicks rule. In the instant case, appellant’s failure to object to the postponement amounts to a waiver of the 180 day limitation and we find no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss at the time of the pre-trial hearing.

Appellant lastly complains on this issue that the actual trial did not begin until June 15, 1981, some six or seven days after the expiration of the 180 day limitation period. The record again fails to reveal any objection prior to or during the actual trial. The record discloses that immediately after the disposition of the pre-trial motions the case was placed on the fourth position on the "move list” and in its regular progression was reached for trial on June 15,1981. No objection was made to the placement of the case on the "move list.” If the appellant had an objection to this procedure, he should have so noted at that time so that at least an opportunity for corrective action might have been made available to the court.

In the absence of such an objection, we consider the complaint waived. See State v. Lattisaw, supra. (1) Appellant contends that the trial judge erred when he refused to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that he had been denied his right to trial by an impartial jury. He urges that the evidence offered in support of the motion established that young adults were systematically excluded from the jury panel in violation of his right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the United States and Maryland constitutions. ⁷ Maryland Rule 754 a states: 2 a.

To the Array. A party may challenge the array on the ground that jurors were not selected, drawn, or summoned according to law, or for any other ground that would disqualify the panel as a whole. A challenge to the array shall be made and determined before any individual juror from that array is examined, but the court for good cause shown may permit it to be made after the jury is sworn but before any evidence is received. Appellant suggests that he moved to strike the entire panel after voir dire had commenced but concedes that he did not challenge the array either before individual jurors were examined or after the jury was sworn but before evidence was received.

It seems clear to us that appellant failed to comply with Rule 754 a and the State contends that this precludes the raising of the issue in this appeal. The appellant urges us to find that the trial court erred when it refused to grant a new trial on the basis that appellant failed to preserve this issue. As an excuse for appellant’s failure to comply with .Rule 754 a, appellant contends that the law requires an objecting defendant to prove a systematic exclusion of individuals belonging to a cognizable group in order to successfully challenge the array. Appellant states that there was no "meaningful opportunity to challenge” until after the jury had been sworn, had heard the evidence and had returned its verdicts.

We do not agree. Appellant apparently wishes the courts to provide him with the best of all possible worlds in the trial of the charges against him. If he is successful in convincing the jury, as constituted, of his innocence then obviously he has no complaint against the array; however, if, after having thrown the dice, he is faced with a conviction, he seeks to require the trial court to deter ⁸ mine the issue of improper jury exclusion which could have and should have been raised before the trial began. As support for this second roll of the dice he offers the case of State v. Devers and Webster, 260 Md. 360 , 272 A.2d 794 , cert. denied, 404 U.S. 824 , 92 S.Ct. 50 , 30 L.Ed.2d 52 (1971), in which the Court of Appeals quoted Hochheimer, The Law of Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 184 at 209-210 (2d Ed. 1904) for the proposition that: The principal grounds for granting a new trial are, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; newly discovered evidence; accident and surprise; misconduct of jurors or the officer having them in charge; bias and disqualification of jurors (disqualification not entitling to a new trial, however, if there was opportunity to challenge); misconduct or error of the judge; fraud or misconduct of the prosecution, e.g., abuse of argument. 3 An examination of the record does not substantiate appellant’s argument that he had no "meaningful opportunity” to challenge the jury array before the trial began.

The factual background as to the manner of selection of the list of 350 prospective jurors selected from a master list of registered voters in Baltimore City was as available before trial as it was after conviction. The information concerning the names, ages and the distribution of ages was also available. The table compiled by the Bureau of Biostatistics of the Baltimore City Health Department could have been prepared and submitted as part of a proper timely challenge under Rule 754 a. Appellant’s expert witness, George R. Ray, a computer specialist who testified as to the method of jury selection in Baltimore City, was available before the trial began.

Furthermore, the expert witness offered as a sociologist to establish