Moore A/K/A Smith v. State

Murphy, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was convicted of robbery by the court sitting without a jury and sentenced to ten years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. His sole contention on this appeal is that the court improperly entered its guilty verdict without first affording his counsel the right to argue the merits of his case. There was evidence adduced at the trial showing that a High’s Store was held up by two men, one of whom was identified by an employee of the store as the appellant.

The appellant was apprehended a short distance from the store by a policeman who had received a description of the robbers. Appellant denied complicity in the robbery. At the conclusion of the appellant’s testimony, the following colloquy occurred: “THE COURT: Is that all? MR.

BRENNAN [defense counsel] : That’s it. THE COURT: Anything else you want to tell me? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: All right, step down. ³³² MR.

BRENNAN: That’s our case, your Honor. MR. DeWATERS [Assistant State’s Attorney] : That’s all, your Honor. THE COURT: Guilty on the first count.

The State will stet the remaining counts.” In Yopps v. State, 228 Md. 204, 207 , it was held that “The Constitutional right of a defendant to be heard through counsel necessarily includes his right to have his counsel make a proper argument on the evidence and the applicable law in his favor, however simple, clear, unimpeached, and conclusive the evidence may seem, unless he has waived his right to such argument.” Yopps , like the present case, was a court trial, and the court there, as here, announced its guilty verdict immediately at the conclusion of the defendant’s testimony without affording his counsel an opportunity to argue the merits of the case. When counsel in Yopps objected to the court’s action in denying him the right to make an argument on behalf of the defendant, the court told him in effect that argument would not change its mind. In reversing the judgment of conviction, the court, citing from text authority, stated that it is the unquestioned right of every person tried upon a charge of crime to be heard by the court through counsel. Noting that no opportunity was afforded counsel to begin an argument before the judge’s verdict of guilty was pronounced, the court ruled at page 208 that such action was “'manifestly prejudicial to the right of the accused to be represented by counsel throughout the entire trial and amounted to a denial of his rights under Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights of this State”; and that “Through his counsel, no matter how convincing the evidence may appear to be, the accused has the right to subject all the facts and evidence produced at the trial to a logical analysis.” In Rome v. State, 236 Md. 583 , the State had concluded its case against the defendants and, after argument by their counsel, motions for judgment of acquittal were de ³³³ nied.

On the following day, the defendants, having no witnesses, renewed their motions for judgment of acquittal and after further argument by counsel on their behalf, the motion was again denied and the court forthwith announced its guilty verdict. Immediately thereafter, the court granted defendants’ counsel’s request to confer with his clients to determine whether they wished to testify. After conferring