Turner v. State

DAVIS, Judge. Daniel Frank Turner, appellant, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol per se, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, failing to drive right of center and failing to obey a traffic device. On December 12, 2006, appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Calvert County of driving under the influence of alcohol per se. He was sentenced to sixty days imprisonment, with all but three weekends suspended.

In addition, he received three years probation and was ordered to pay a $500 fine. In this timely appeal, he raises two issues, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Whether the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the docket entries must be amended to reflect that no disposition was reached as to driving while under the influence, driving while impaired, failing to drive right of center and driving an uninsured vehicle.

We shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court on the first issue and remand the case to the circuit court on the second ⁴⁸⁰ issue with instructions to amend the docket entries to accurately reflect the disposition rendered at trial. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On February 26, 2006, Deputy Paul Wood observed appellant’s vehicle speeding, weaving “sporadically” within his lane, traversing the center line by two to three feet on different occasions and veering onto the shoulder three times. Deputy Wood followed appellant’s vehicle and pulled him over once he determined that it was safe to do so. When he approached, he smelled a “strong odor of alcohol” emanating from the vehicle and observed that appellant’s eyes appeared “glassy” and that appellant’s speech was slurred.

Appellant told Deputy Wood that he was driving around searching for a reception site for his sister’s wedding and that he had just departed from a local bar. Various field sobriety tests were conducted and appellant was subsequently arrested. At the Sheriffs Department, Corporal Anthony Moschetto performed a breathalyzer test, utilizing the Intoximeter ECIR, which resulted in a reading of 0.152 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath and another sample reading of 0.150 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. According to the testimony of appellant and his father, appellant had attended his sister’s wedding shower earlier that evening.

He had arrived at the party at 5:00 p.m. and imbibed two glasses of wine and three beers throughout the course of the evening. At 9:00 p.m., appellant left the party with his parents and went to sleep around 10:15 p.m. Because appellant suffers from insomnia, he awoke at approximately 1:15 a.m. and went to the beach to locate prospective locations for his sister’s rehearsal dinner. Appellant denied consuming any alcoholic beverages while out later that evening.

He denied that the vehicle he was operating swerved, but explained that the road was curvy and that the officer’s headlights were bright. He further explained that his behavior ⁴⁸¹ was due to an anxiety disorder for which he takes medication, Clomazepan, on a daily basis. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. ANALYSIS I Appellant first assigns error to the jury instruction regarding the reasonable doubt standard propounded by the court.

The court’s instructions were in pertinent part as follows: Just mention a couple of general jury instructions. The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges— charges. This presumption remains with the defendant throughout every stage of the trial and is not overcome unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

This burden remains on the State throughout the trial. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. However, the State is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty, nor is the State required to negate every conceivable circumstance of innocence. A reasonable doubt is a doubt founded upon reason.

It is not a fanciful doubt, a whimsical doubt, or a capricious doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires such proof as would convince you of the truth of a fact to the extent that you would be willing to act upon such belief without reservation in an important matter in your own business or personal affairs. However, if you are not satisfied of the defendant’s guilt to that extent, then reasonable doubt exists and the defendant must be found not guilty. (Emphasis added.) Compare Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction (MPJI-CR) 2:02 (2005 Supp.). 1 ⁴⁸² Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in deviating from the pattern jury instruction, which no longer contains the language: “fanciful, whimsical or capricious.” He notes that, according to the Comment to the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction, this language was specifically omitted from the current reasonable doubt instruction when it was revised in 1999 in response to complaints that the language was confusing jurors.

Appellant, therefore, contends that it is likely that the “inclusion of the now disfavored language misled and confused the jurors about the meaning of this critical concept.” The State preliminarily argues that appellant’s assignment of error has not been properly preserved for appellate review and that, if appellant had objected at the time the instructions were propounded, the circuit court could have corrected any purported error. Appellant concedes that he did not object; however, he urges that this Court take cognizance of the plain error in the instructions that, he claims, were likely to unduly influence the jury and thereby deprive him of his right to a fair trial. Because the reasonable doubt standard of proof is constitutionally mandated, in appellant’s view, the magnitude of the error cannot be ignored. The State counters that the court’s instructions were neither material nor prejudicial and, therefore, the circumstances ⁴⁸³ attendant here are not so egregious as to warrant plain error review.

Rather, the State believes that any divergence in this case was “minor” as the court closely adhered to the pattern jury instruction, with the exception of adding that one obsolete sentence. The State, therefore, argues that the instruction could not have prejudicially impacted appellant. To preserve an assignment of error in the giving of an instruction, a party must object “on the record promptly after the court instructs the jury, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection.” Md. Rule 4 — 325(e) (2008). Despite a party’s failure to object, appellate courts possess plenary discretion, either on their own initiative or by request of a party, to recognize plain error in jury instructions.

Md. Rule 4-325(e). Due to the numerous occasions on which we have been asked to review for plain error and the potential that granting such requests runs the risk of eroding the preservation requirement, we exercise that discretion only when the “ ‘unobjected to error [is] compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.’ ” Brown v. State, 169 Md.App. 442, 457 , 901 A.2d 846 (2006) (quoting Smith v. State, 64 Md.App. 625, 632 , 498 A.2d 284 (1985), in turn quoting State v. Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198, 203 , 411 A.2d 1035 (1980)). Appellant believes that this is one of those compelling instances because a proper explication of the reasonable doubt standard is an “indispensable component” of criminal proceedings and any deviation from the pattern jury instruction “was likely to have misled the jury.” The Court of Appeals, in Ruffin v. State, 394 Md. 355 , 906 A.2d 360 (2006), changed Maryland common law principles with regard to the toleration of deviations from the pattern jury instructions on the reasonable doubt standard. 2 In Ruffin , the trial judge modified the ⁴⁸⁴ MPJI-CR 2:02 in three different instances. First, the judge instructed the jury that the presumption of innocence remains “until” the jurors believe it is overcome, rather than “unless” the jurors believe it is overcome.

Ruffin, 394 Md. at 358, 361 , 906 A.2d 360 . Second, the trial judge, in defining reasonable doubt, employed the following language of the outdated version of the pattern instruction: “It’s not a fanciful doubt, a whimsical doubt or a capricious doubt.” Id. Lastly, the trial court instructed the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent, “just as every defendant who is tried in every courtroom in the United States of America in a criminal charge is.” Id. In its analysis, the Court began by reiterating that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, respectively, guarantee that the accused be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, the jury instruction on that standard is an essential component of every criminal proceeding.

Id. at 363 , 906 A.2d 360 . Many judges, attorneys and legal scholars in Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions, have endorsed the use of pattern jury instructions on the reasonable doubt standard to ensure that a defendant’s due process rights are protected and to create consistency and uniformity in jury trials. Id. at 366-67, 906 A.2d 360 . 3 Appellate courts have regularly been faced with the issue of whether modified instructions on the reason ⁴⁸⁵ able doubt standard and presumption of innocence were erroneous. Id. at 371, 906 A.2d 360 .

To minimize the recurrence of this issue and to assure that instructions are consistent with the basic constitutional rights of the accused, the Ruffin Court held that trial courts are “required to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt standard of proof which closely adheres to MPJI-CR 2:02.” Id. at 373 , 906 A.2d 360 (emphasis added). “Deviations in substance will not be tolerated.” Id. As gleaned from Ruffin , a court is not required to provide a verbatim recitation of the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction defining reasonable doubt, but must “closely adhere” to the language employed. In this case, the court did recite verbatim the language of the pattern jury instruction with one exception; it added the sentence contrasting a reasonable doubt to a “fanciful doubt, a whimsical doubt, or a capricious doubt,” which is the language that appellant claims misled the jury. Prior to the revisions of the pattern instructions in 1999, the language at issue was used to define the reasonable doubt standard.

Although the language was later omitted from the pattern jury instruction, it was done so, not because it is erroneous, but in response to complaints by practitioners that it was confusing jurors. See Comment to MPJI-CR 2:02. Because use of that language is technically correct, the circuit court’s use of that language, even after the legislature’s revisions to the pattern instructions, did not alter the State’s substantial burden of proof. Furthermore, even with the inclusion of that language, the circuit court substantially adhered to the current version of the pattern jury instruction, thereby complying with the principles espoused in Ruffin.

In the exercise of our plenary authority, we do not deem the addition of the one sentence to be error, much less plain error. II Appellant was charged by citation with five offenses: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol per se, (2) driving ⁴⁸⁶ under the influence of alcohol, (3) driving while impaired by alcohol, (4) failing to drive right of center and (5) failing to obey a traffic device. Charges number one, two and three were submitted to the jury, while the remaining two offenses were not. Of the three charges submitted to the jury, the court instructed the jury that, if it reached a guilty verdict on the driving under the influence per se charge, it need not proceed to determine guilt as to driving under the influence of alcohol and driving while impaired by alcohol.

Conversely, if it reached a not guilty verdict on driving under the influence per se, the court instructed the jury to proceed to determine guilt on the other two alcohol-related driving offenses. Pursuant to the court’s instructions, the jury convicted appellant of driving under the influence per se. The docket entries, however, indicate that appellant was convicted of driving under the influence per se as well as driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired, failing to drive right of center and driving an uninsured vehicle. 4 The docket entries specifically indicate that these additional charges were merged on the day of sentencing. Because the jury never convicted appellant of these additional offenses, he requests this Court to order the docket entries amended.

In support thereof, he argues that it is incorrect for the docket entries to indicate that the charges were merged because the term merged “does not indicate that no verdict was taken or that charges were not submitted to the jury.” “Merged,” 5 according to appellant, indicates that ⁴⁸⁷ the jury found him guilty of the offenses and that the court merged the convictions under the required evidence test or, alternatively, merged the sentences under the rule of lenity. Thus, appellant contends that the docket entries are clearly erroneous and may potentially have a negative impact on