Pearson v. State

Pee Curiam. Appellant Pearson appeared without counsel before the People’s Court for Prince George’s County on September 80, 1968 upon a charge of shoplifting in violation of Maryland Code, Article 27, Section 551A. The State prayed a jury trial and the case was ordered removed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. In a letter dated October 7, 1968 sent from the County Jail, the appellant advised the State’s Attorney that “I intend to act as counsel in my own behalf,” and “I, therefore, request full discovery pursuant to Maryland Rule 728.” Subsequently, appellant filed motions for a speedy trial and for discovery and a motion to dismiss the indictment.

The State answered each motion and the case came on for trial on November 4, 1968, at which time the following colloquy occurred : “THE COURT: Are you ready for trial now ? MR. PEARSON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You are going to handle the defense yourself ?

MR. PEARSON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Very well, you will be given a list of jurors. You are entitled to strike four from that list, peremptory challenges.

MR. PEARSON: Will I be allowed to talk to the jury to ask them any questions ? THE COURT: Yes, after the jury is selected you will be given a chance to make an opening ⁷¹⁶ statement. The State first makes an opening statement and then you make an opening statement, and then the State calls witnesses and you can cross examine them.” After the court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, appellant made an opening statement to the jury.

During the trial he objected to the testimony of the State’s sole witness and cross-examined him at some length. He made a brief closing argument before the jury, after which the jury found him guilty of shoplifting and he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. Appellant filed his own notice of appeal alleging therein, among other grounds, that he was not afforded “the assistance of legal