Yopps v. State

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Arnold Yopps, was indicted for burglary. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before the court without a jury, Judge Joseph L. Carter presiding. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

On this appeal from the judgment and sentence he presents the sole question, did the trial court commit prejudicial error ²⁰⁶ in failing to permit counsel to state his arguments on behalf of the defendant. The appellant testified in his own behalf and admitted being in the vicinity of the property burglarized, but denied any complicity in the crime. At the close of all of the testimony the following colloquy occurred: “Mr. Rosenthal (Defense counsel) : Step down. The Court: Anything else?

Mr. Rosenthal: That is our case, your Honor. The Court: Any rebuttal? Mr. Moylan (Assistant State’s Attorney) : No, your Honor. The Court: The verdict is guilty. * * * Mr. Rosenthal: You didn’t even ask me for argument in this case to point out the fact that these, that whoever saw these people there never saw them carrying anything back and forth.

The Court: It is a question of balancing the testimony of what I heard from these witnesses as against his, who I believe, and perfectly obvious who I must believe under the circumstances. Mr. Rosenthal: You are not giving the benefit of the doubt. The Court: Wouldn’t change my mind about it. Mr. Rosenthal: You mpst have corpus delicti of some kind and the explanation is reasonable.

The Court: I don’t think it is, Mr. Rosenthal. Maybe they will disagree with me upstairs and you have a right to go up there. Mr. Rosenthal:, All right, sir * * The appellant contends that this action by the trial court had the effect of refusing to allow counsel to present argument and constituted a denial of his right to the assistance of counsel as provided in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and preserved by Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights of Maryland. ²⁰⁷ 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, or unless the argument is not within the issues in the case, and the trial court has no discretion to deny accused such right. 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1082; Aladdin Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton (N. J.), 187 Atl. 350 . Of course this does not preclude the trial court from checking argument foreign to the issues of the case and to prevent needless repetition when it is manifest that the discussion is complete.

The Court may in its discretion limit the time to be consumed by counsel in argument, and the only restriction is that reasonable time for argument must be allowed counsel. What constitutes reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each case and is within the trial court’s discretion. This discretion is not ordinarily subject to review by an appellate court unless the time allowed is plainly arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Comi v. State, 202 Md. 472 , 97 A. 2d 129