Case Name: Jerry Oscar SMITH v. STATE of Maryland
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1986-11-28
Citations: 308 Md. 162
Docket Number: No. 140
Parties: Jerry Oscar SMITH v. STATE of Maryland.
Judges: Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH , ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 162–183

Head Matter:
517 A.2d 1081
Jerry Oscar SMITH v. STATE of Maryland.
No. 140,
Sept. Term, 1985.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Nov. 28, 1986.
Jose F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Valerie V. Cloutier, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH , ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
Smith, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

Opinion:
MURPHY, Chief Judge.
This case involves a challenge to the admissibility of testimony at a criminal sentencing hearing pertaining to the defendant's alleged participation in an uncharged offense unrelated to the crime for which he was then being sentenced.
I.
The record reveals that Minnie Burt spent the evening of June 10, 1984, in her former place of employment, a lounge located in Fairmount Heights, Maryland. She left the lounge intending to get a cab to her home in the District of Columbia. A man, whom Burt later identified as Jerry Oscar Smith, offered to drive her to the cab stand and she accepted. However, instead of driving her to the promised destination, Smith drove Burt to a secluded country road where, at knifepoint, he forced her to engage in sexual relations with him. Smith abandoned Burt in a wooded area after which she made her way to a nearby house and summoned the police. Burt gave the police a description of her attacker's jeep and thereafter identified Smith as her assailant from a photo array. The police apprehended Smith in his jeep on the following day; he had a knife on his person at the time of arrest.
Smith was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and found guilty of first degree rape and first degree sexual offense. The trial judge (Chasanow, J.) set a date for sentencing; at this point in the proceedings, the prosecution notified the court and defense counsel of its intention to present the testimony of another woman at the sentencing hearing whom Smith allegedly attempted to rape on the day preceding the attack upon Burt. A letter which included the witness's full name, address and a copy of the police report relating to the uncharged incident was promptly sent to defense counsel.
At the sentencing hearing, Mrs. Willie May Williams testified over Smith's objection that on the evening of June 9, 1984, the car in which she and her husband were riding broke down. She walked to a nearby gas station to secure the services of a tow truck; however, there was no truck on duty. Williams said that Smith was at the station in his jeep and she asked him whether he had jumper cables. Smith responded affirmatively and offered to drive the witness back to her stalled vehicle. Williams told Smith where the disabled car was parked. He then drove to the location of the Williams' vehicle; the witness returned to the vehicle on foot. Attempts to jump-start the car were unsuccessful. Williams testified that Smith said that there was a service station with a tow truck approximately ten blocks away. She then accepted Smith's offer of a ride to the service station. Her husband stayed behind with the disabled car. Williams said that she became suspicious when Smith drove past several service stations and headed toward a wooded area. The witness thereafter jumped out of the jeep and took refuge behind a tree. Williams said that Smith stopped for a short time, but then drove on.
Smith testified on his own behalf. He admitted driving Williams to a gas station in search of a tow truck. He said that he left the witness at the gas station and did not drive Williams to a wooded area. The court sentenced Smith to two concurrent terms of twenty-five years for the offenses perpetrated against Burt. The judgments were affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion. We granted certiorari to consider whether Williams' testimony was properly admitted at the sentencing hearing.
II.
At the outset we note that "a sentencing judge is vested with virtually boundless discretion." Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 480, 425 A.2d 632 (1981); see also Reid v. State, 302 Md. 811, 819, 490 A.2d 1289 (1985) and cases cited therein. The sentencing judge is accorded this broad latitude to best accomplish the objectives of sentencing— punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536, 540, 336 A.2d 113 (1975). A sentence should be premised upon both the facts and circumstances of the crime itself and the background of the individual convicted of committing the crime. Reid, supra, 302 Md. at 820, 490 A.2d 1289 (citing Henry v. State, 273 Md. 131, 150, 328 A.2d 293 (1974)). The strict rules of evidence do not apply at a sentencing proceeding for reasons explicated by the Supreme Court in Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246-47, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949).
"In a trial before verdict the issue is whether a defendant is guilty of having engaged in certain criminal conduct of which he has been specifically accused. Eules of evidence have been fashioned for criminal trials which narrowly confine the trial contest to evidence that is strictly relevant to the particular offense charged. These rules rest in part on a necessity to prevent a time-consuming and confusing trial of collateral issues. They were also designed to prevent tribunals concerned solely with the issue of guilt of a particular offense from being influenced to convict for that offense by evidence that the defendant had habitually engaged in other misconduct. A sentencing judge, however, is not confined to the narrow issue of guilt. His task within fixed statutory or constitutional limits is to determine the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been determined. Highly relevant — if not essential — to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics. And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence to restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to the trial."
See also Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 193, 297 A.2d 696 (1972).
The consideration of a wide variety of information about a specific defendant permits the sentencing judge to individualize the sentence to fit "the offender and not merely the crime." Williams, 337 U.S. at 247, 69 S.Ct. at 1083. In that case the Supreme Court approved the trial judge's consideration of a presentence investigation which contained information about burglaries of which Williams had not been convicted, but had either admitted or been identified as the perpetrator. This policy of broad dissemination of information to the sentencing judge was reiterated in Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 585, 79 S.Ct. 421, 426, 3 L.Ed.2d 516 (1959). There, the Court stated that "the sentencing judge is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved in the crime." In United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978), the Court approved the sentencing judge's consideration of what he believed to be perjured testimony by the defendant at trial. Hence, the Supreme Court has permitted sentencing judges to consider past conduct which is criminal in nature but which did not result in a conviction.
Consistent with the philosophy espoused by the Supreme Court, Maryland has approved the admission of various types of evidence in sentencing proceedings. In Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 217 A.2d 298 (1966), the defendants pleaded guilty to, and were convicted of, breaking and entering a diner. They also admitted to an attempted breaking at another location and to the theft of a truck. The defendants there objected to the sentencing judge's consideration of any offenses for which they had not been tried or convicted. In approving consideration of the confessions to other crimes, the Court noted:
"It is almost, if not universally, held that opprobrious or kindly and commendable action on the part of a convict may be considered in sentencing as a matter either of aggravation or mitigation of possible punishment. It would be a strange holding, indeed, to rule that opprobrious conduct not amounting to a crime may be considered in sentencing, but more offensive action cannot, merely because it amounted to a crime of which the convict may, or may not, thereafter be convicted." 241 Md. at 585, 217 A.2d 298.
In Henry v. State, 273 Md. 131, 328 A.2d 293 (1974), the defendant was convicted of automobile theft and of receiving stolen money; he was found not guilty of murder, assault with intent to murder and armed robbery. In sentencing Henry, the trial judge referred to the circumstances surrounding all of the charges, including those crimes for which Henry was acquitted. In affirming the judgments, we indicated that "[i]n passing sentence the trial judge was not required to remain oblivious to evidence of Henry's involvement in the homicide and robbery at a level less than would warrant his conviction of those crimes." 273 Md. at 150, 328 A.2d 293.
At issue in Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 425 A.2d 632 (1981) was whether, at a sentencing hearing, the sentencing judge could consider confessions obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We refused to extend the exclusionary rule to sentencing proceedings and held that consideration of such confessions was within the judge's discretion. 289 Md. at 486-87, 425 A.2d 632.
Our cases thus make clear that sentencing judges in Maryland may consider the criminal conduct of a defendant even if there has been no conviction. As originally stated in Bartholomey v. State, supra, 267 Md. at 193, 297 A.2d 696:
"[T]o aid the sentencing judge in fairly and intelligently exercising the discretion vested in him, the procedural policy of the State encourages him to consider information concerning the convicted person's reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed." (Footnote and citations omitted.)
See also Huffington v. State, 304 Md. 559, 500 A.2d 272 (1985) (sentencing judge may consider a defendant's institutional history including any disciplinary sanctions reflected therein); Reid v. State, supra, 302 Md. 811, 490 A.2d 1289 (sentencing judge may consider an additional victim impact statement); Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 131 A.2d 863 (1957) (a sentencing judge may consider a defendant's past record).
There are, of course, some restrictions placed upon the judge presiding at the sentencing proceeding. A sentence cannot violate any constitutional requirements such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; the sentencing judge cannot be motivated by prejudice, ill-will or any other impermissible considerations; and the sentence itself cannot exceed any limitation set by statute. Reid v. State, supra, 302 Md. at 820, 490 A.2d 1289; Teasley v. State, 298 Md. 364, 370, 470 A.2d 337 (1984) and cases cited therein. In addition to these limitations, the prosecution must disclose to the defendant or counsel any information the State plans to present before the judge for consideration in sentencing. See Md.R. 4-342(c) (1986 Repl.Vol.); Johnson v. State, supra, 274 Md. at 540 n. 4, 336 A.2d 113; Bartholomey v. State, supra, 267 Md. at 193 n. 13, 297 A.2d 696. Such notice affords a defendant the opportunity to refute or discredit this information.
III.
Smith contends that Williams' testimony was too unreliable to be admissible at the sentencing hearing because the witness never pursued formal criminal charges and, therefore, her testimony amounted to nothing more than a bald accusation of criminal conduct. We find no merit in this argument. Manifestly, the mere fact that Williams did not seek formal charges against Smith does not of itself demonstrate that her testimony was so unreliable as to totally negate her credibility. Indeed, the incident was reported to the police and a copy of the police report was provided to Smith prior to the sentencing hearing. And, in conformity with Md.R. 4-342(c), Smith was given advance notification that the State intended to call Williams as a witness at the sentencing hearing. Smith was provided with her full name and address as well as the subject matter of her testimony. Furthermore, the witness was sworn to tell the truth and was, of course, subject to cross-examination.
In United States v. Oxford, 735 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.1984), a witness testified at the sentencing hearing that one of the defendants, who had been convicted of various drug-related offenses, attempted to sell him drugs while out on bond. The Court held that such testimony could be considered in fashioning an appropriate sentence. The fundamental inquiry in Oxford, as here, centered upon the credibility of the witness's testimony. As pointed out in Oxford, "questions of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony are left to the sound discretion of the trial court." 735 F.2d at 279; see generally Fletcher v. State, 256 Md. 310, 315, 260 A.2d 34 (1970). Our review of the record does not indicate any abuse of the sentencing judge's discretion in admitting the Williams' testimony.
The testimony at issue constituted more than a bald allegation; rather, it contained specific facts concerning an encounter between Smith and the witness. The admission of this testimony was, in the circumstances of this case, permissible for consideration by the sentencing court as "opprobrious conduct not amounting to a crime" or of facts amounting to a crime "of which the [defendant] may, or may not, thereafter be convicted." Purnell, supra, 241 Md. at 585, 217 A.2d 298; see also Henry v. State, supra, 273 Md. at 147-48, 328 A.2d 293 ("sentencing judges are permitted to consider reliable evidence of conduct which may be opprobrious although not criminal, as well as the details and circumstances of criminal conduct for which the person has not been tried"). Of course, a sentencing judge may obtain relevant information through live witness testimony at a sentencing hearing. Lodowski v. State, 302 Md. 691, 748-49, 490 A.2d 1228 (1985), vacated and remanded on other grounds, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1452, 89 L.Ed.2d 711 (1986).
IV.
Smith also contends that by considering Williams' testimony, the trial judge sentenced him not only for first degree rape and first degree sexual offense (the offenses he was convicted of) but also of attempted rape (a crime with which he was never charged). Smith's argument is essentially two-fold: (1) it is impermissible for a sentencing judge to consider any criminal conduct that has not culminated in a conviction; and (2) if uncharged criminal conduct is con sidered during sentencing for another crime, the defendant cannot later be charged with that crime as it would violate the principles of double jeopardy.
As earlier indicated, a sentencing judge may properly consider uncharged or untried offenses. See, e.g., Huffing-ton v. State, supra (permitting consideration of disciplinary problems while defendant was institutionalized); Logan v. State, supra (permitting consideration of illegally obtained confessions); Henry v. State, supra (permitting consideration of circumstances surrounding an acquittal); Purnell v. State, supra (permitting consideration of confessions to uncharged, untried crimes). These cases are consistent with Williams v. New York, supra, and with the great weight of authority in other jurisdictions. For example, in People v. Davis, 38 Ill.App.3d 649, 348 N.E.2d 533 (1976), the defendant was convicted of the armed robbery of a bakery owner and his wife. At the sentencing hearing, testimony was taken from two witnesses who identified the defendant as the man who robbed them several hours subsequent to the robbery at the bakery. The defendant objected to the admission of this testimony because he had been neither charged nor convicted of any crime connected with this unrelated robbery. In upholding the sentence, the court held that the trial judge must be allowed great latitude in examining the defendant's character, due care being given to ensure that the information presented is accurate. In Davis, the witnesses gave a full rendition of the facts while under oath, and their testimony was subject to cross-examination. See also People v. Barksdale, 44 Ill.App.3d 770, 3 Ill.Dec. 465, 358 N.E.2d 1150 (1976) (testimony as to other rapes committed by defendant deemed material and relevant to court's inquiry of defendant's moral character). Similarly, in State v. Koon, 278 S.C. 528, 298 S.E.2d 769 (1982), the defendant was convicted of kidnapping a woman from a shopping center parking lot. At his sentencing, testimony was elicited from another woman he had attempted to kidnap in the same manner. The testimony was held to be admissible as bearing upon the defendant's character.
A number of other states have held that a sentencing judge may consider a defendant's criminal conduct even if he has not been charged or convicted of the particular crime. See, e.g., Holden v. State, 602 P.2d 452 (Alaska 1979); People v. Boyd, 38 Cal.3d 762, 700 P.2d 782, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 (1985); People v. Lowery, 642 P.2d 515 (Colo. 1982); State v. Murphy, 59 Hawaii 1, 575 P.2d 448 (1978); State v. Ott, 102 Idaho 169, 627 P.2d 798 (1981); People v. Brisbon, 106 Ill.2d 342, 88 Ill.Dec. 87, 478 N.E.2d 402, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 276, 88 L.Ed.2d 241 (1985); Jackson v. State, 426 N.E.2d 685 (Ind.1981); State v. Mateer, 383 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 1986); State v. Jenkins, 419 So.2d 463 (La.1982); State v. O'Donnell, 495 A.2d 798 (Me.1985); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 461 N.E.2d 157 (1984); Williamson v. State, 388 So.2d 168 (Miss.1980); State v. Jackson, 476 S.W.2d 540 (Mo.1972); State v. Baldwin, 629 P.2d 222 (Mont. 1981); State v. Christensen, 213 Neb. 820, 331 N.W.2d 793 (1983); Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 545 P.2d 1159 (1976); State v. Ferbert, 113 N.H. 235, 306 A.2d 202 (1973); State v. Humphreys, 89 N.J. 4, 444 A.2d 569 (1982); State v. Segotta, 100 N.M. 498, 672 P.2d 1129 (1983); People v. Hall, 46 N.Y.2d 873, 387 N.E.2d 610, 414 N.Y.S.2d 678, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 848, 100 S.Ct. 97, 62 L.Ed.2d 63 (1979); State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 203, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 103 S.Ct. 474, 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982); State v. Wells, 265 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 2865, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); State v. Burton, 52 Ohio St.2d 21, 368 N.E.2d 297 (1977); State v. Conger, 268 N.W.2d 800 (S.D.1978); State v. Howell, 707 P.2d 115 (Utah 1985); State v. Ramsay, 146 Vt. 70, 499 A.2d 15 (1985); State v. Blight, 89 Wash.2d 38, 569 P.2d 1129 (1977); State v. Harris, 119 Wis.2d 612, 350 N.W.2d 633 (1984); Chisolm v. State, 409 So.2d 930 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); State v. Kelly, 122 Ariz. 495, 595 P.2d 1040 (App.1979); Crosby v. State, 429 So.2d 421 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); People v. Robinson, 147 Mich. App. 509, 382 N.W.2d 809 (1985); Johnson v. State, 665 P.2d 815 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); State v. Brown, 44 Or.App. 597, 606 P.2d 678 (1980); Commonwealth v. Vernille, 275 Pa.Super. 263, 418 A.2d 713 (1980); Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 897, 88 L.Ed.2d 931 (1986). But cf. Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518 (Minn.1984) (generally improper to consider evidence which points to defendant's guilt of some other offense); Newby v. State, 161 Ga.App. 805, 288 S.E.2d 889 (1982) (trial judge erred in basing sentence on offenses for which defendant had not yet been convicted).
Smith's further contention that consideration of uncharged conduct may lead to a double jeopardy violation if a subsequent trial is held is also meritless. Such evidence is introduced at sentencing to provide the presiding judge with a complete composite of the defendant. Manifestly, it is not a trial to punish the defendant for an untried crime. In United States v. Wise, 603 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir.1979), the defendant was convicted of various drug-related offenses. At sentencing the judge considered perjured testimony given by the defendant at the trial of a co-defendant. At that time, the defendant had not been convicted of perjury. Citing United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978), the Fourth Circuit stated:
"[W]e believe that when a sentencing judge takes into account various aspects of the defendant's background, including other offenses committed, in order to assess the defendant's need for rehabilitation, the sentence thereby imposed does not constitute punishment for these aspects of defendant's background." 603 F.2d at 1106.
Hence, the consideration of a defendant's untried criminal conduct, while sentencing him for another crime, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
In State v. Pinch, 306 N.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 203, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 103 S.Ct. 474, 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982), the defendant shot two people within minutes at the same location and was tried separately for the two murders. He was convicted of both murders and, at sentencing, each murder was submitted as an aggravating circumstance for the other. The defendant argued that reciprocal use of the two murder convictions at his death penalty hearings constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed; it said:
"Regardless of the formula utilized, the jury's consideration of a defendant's commission of 'other crimes of violence,' in making its ultimate penalty recommendation for that defendant's conviction of a related but separate capital offense, is not logically equivalent to the defendant receiving multiple punishment for the same crime. This is especially true where, as here, the prosecution relies on an additional aggravating circumstance which is also subsequently found by the jury. In short, the principle of double jeopardy has not evolved, as defendant argues, to the point that it prevents the prosecution from relying, at the sentencing phase of a capital case, upon a related course of criminal conduct by the defendant as an aggravating factor to enhance the punishment of defendant for another distinct offense, and this is so, irrespective of whether the defendant was also convicted of another capital charge arising out of that very same course of criminal conduct and subjected to separate punishment therefor." 292 S.E.2d at 226 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
The sentencing judge in the present case did not err in admitting testimony about Williams' encounter with Smith on the day preceding the attack upon Mrs. Burt. That particular incident shed light upon Smith's background and, insofar as the record discloses, it was considered solely for this purpose.
V.
Finally, Smith complains that the Williams' testimony subjected him to a trial-like proceeding without the requisite constitutional protections. He contends that if there had been an actual trial for the attempted rape of Williams, he would have been entitled to a jury. Of course, Smith was not "tried" for attempted rape; instead, the sentencing judge may have taken the incident into account while sentencing Smith for the crimes of which he was convicted. Smith's averment that the sentencing proceeding was no more than a substitute for criminal prosecution is patently frivolous.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.
. An exception to this rule is that an illegally obtained confession may not be considered if it was obtained for the purpose of enhancing punishment. Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 486, 425 A.2d 632.
. We note that Smith received two concurrent sentences of twenty-five years, neither of which exceeds the statutory máximums. See Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 462(b) and 464(b).