Case Title: Bishop v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81/94

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
PAUL RENARD BISHOP v. STATE OF MARYLAND
CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER A JUROR'S RESPONSE TO A POLL OF A VERDICT IN
A CRIMINAL CASE WAS AMBIGUOUS, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
ACTION PROPERLY RESOLVED THE AMBIGUITY.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 81    
September Term, 1994
___________________________________
PAUL RENARD BISHOP
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
___________________________________
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Karwacki
Bell
Raker
     McAuliffe, John F. (retired,
       specially assigned)
 
JJ.
___________________________________
Opinion by McAuliffe, J.
     Chasanow and Raker, JJ.,      
dissent.
___________________________________
     Filed:  January 22, 1996
     The transcript reports the juror's response as "reluctantly
1
yes."  Because proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County are electronically recorded, we have been able to hear the
response of the juror.  The tape recording discloses that after a
pause, the juror responded "uhh, reluctantly, y
This case involves the question of whether a juror's response
to a poll of a verdict in a criminal case was ambiguous, and if so,
whether the trial judge's action properly resolved the ambiguity.
I.
Paul Renard Bishop was tried in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County on charges of robbery and conspiracy to commit
robbery.  At the conclusion of deliberations following a two-day
trial, the foreman of the jury announced a verdict of guilty on
both counts.  Defense counsel requested that the jury be polled.
The first two jurors answered "yes, it is" to the clerk's question
of whether their verdict was the same as the foreman's verdict.
The third juror questioned in the poll responded differently -- he
said "uhh, reluctantly, yes."1