Title: Harvey v. State

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
   No. 99
September Term, 2009
         
     LAQUARIE DONTE HARVEY   
   
          v.
       STATE OF MARYLAND
 
    
Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
     Greene
Murphy
Adkins
Barbera, 
 JJ.
            PER CURIAM ORDER
 
Filed: April 8, 2010 
 
LAQUARIE DONTE HARVEY
     *
  In the
*      Court of Appeals
 
v.
*      of Maryland
 
*
  No. 99
       
STATE OF MARYLAND
*      September Term, 2009
     PER CURIAM ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, joint record
extract, and oral argument heard on April 2, 2010, it is this 8th
day of April 2010,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of
the Court concurring, that this case be remanded to the Court of
Special Appeals, without affirmance or reversal, pursuant to
Maryland Rule 8-604(a)(5) and (d)(1) (the prerequisite findings
under the latter Rule provision having been made by the Court),
with directions that the Court of Special Appeals remand the case
to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for further proceedings
to determine, if possible: 
1.  whether the trial judge (Judge Cavanaugh), or
any court personnel acting on his behalf, 
notified contemporaneously Harvey’s trial 
counsel of the receipt and content of the jury
note in question and offered that counsel an
opportunity to present to the judge any arguments, 
suggestions, or objections regarding how to
respond to the question posed in the jury note;
2.   the content, circumstances, and modalities of the
communications, if any, referred to in #1 above;
3.  whether the purported response to the jury note 
appearing on the face of the note in the 
record was actually delivered to the jury; or,
4.  if the above queries are not able to be 
    answered in hindsight in any respect, an 
    explanation why that is so,
and it is further
ORDERED that, upon conclusion of the further proceedings and
the trial court’s formulation of responses to the queries posed in
this order, the case be returned to this Court forthwith and
without need of noting a further appeal or seeking a further writ
of certiorari.  If the trial court’s responses cause either party
to wish to file supplemental briefs or memoranda of law, it shall
be allowed and a schedule for doing so established by the Court’s
Clerk’s office.  The case shall be placed again on a future docket
of the Court for supplemental argument, when ripe to do so, unless
neither party desires further oral argument.
/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr.     
    Senior Judge