Parrish v. State

ROBERT M. BELL, Judge. On May 4, 1984, Denise Lillian Parrish, 1 the appellant was convicted in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Hinkel, J.), of theft of goods valued over $300.00. At the conclusion of the trial she was committed to the custody of the Division of Correction for three years. Pursuant to a motion for post conviction relief, a hearing was held on January 3, 1985.

She was granted the right to file a belated appeal on March 12, 1985. On appeal she contends that the court erred: 1. in finding her guilty without first affording her the opportunity to make a closing statement; and; 2. in refusing to admit the statement given to the police by her alleged accomplice. The record before us shows that at about 6:45 p.m. on January 19, 1984, appellant and a male companion entered a clothing store and removed clothing, which they placed in a bag. They were observed by the assistant manager and by an off-duty security guard.

Subsequently, they were arrested. I. Opportunity to Make Closing Argument Appellant contends that the court erred in finding her guilty without first affording her the opportunity to make a closing argument. Appellant renewed her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State did not present evidence of the value of the property. The prosecutor then responded, which prompted the court to ask the court stenographer to read back the pertinent testimony.

Having determined that the value of the property had been proven, the court allowed the prosecutor to finish his statement. The court then ⁶⁶⁶ denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and declared her guilty. Appellant neither objected, nor protested; rather, her counsel requested, and was granted, the right to speak in mitigation. In Cherry v. State, 62 Md.App. 425 , 489 A.2d 1138 (1985), this court held that when a trial judge announces his verdict without first affording the defense an opportunity to present closing argument, in the absence of an objection, the right to present closing argument is waived.

In the case sub judice, the premature verdict issue has not been preserved for review. Covington v. State, 282 Md. 540 , 386 A.2d 336 (1978).

II

Admissibility of Statement by Alleged Accomplice The appellant sought to introduce a statement given to the police by her male companion. Without having seen the statement, the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection and refused to admit the statement because it was hearsay. Appellant now contends that it was error for the court to refuse to admit the statement. Although the statement was not signed, contained no acknowledgment from the declarant, and no evidence was proffered as to its accuracy, appellant asserts that the statement “is plainly a declaration against [her male companion’s] penal interest.” She argues, therefore, that the statement should have been admitted unless shown to be untrustworthy, frivolous, or collusive.

Dyson v. State, 238 Md. 398 , 209 A.2d 609 (1965); Agnew v. State, 51 Md.App. 614 , 446 A.2d 425 (1982); Harris v. State, 40 Md.App. 58 , 387 A.2d 1152 (1978). The issue of the admissibility of