Opinion ID: 2323647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The retrial and present appeal

Text: Respondent's three-day retrial on the felony murder charge commenced with jury selection on August 11, 2008. During voir dire, the trial court informed the venire of the following: Ladies and gentlemen, youwill hear evidence during the courseor the people who try the case will hear evidence that the [the Respondent] was previously convicted for the offense of Second Degree Murder and Robbery in connection with the incidentthat is the subject of today's trial. That in part is why or primarily is the reason why the only matter before the jury in this casebefore the Court in today's case or today's trial, will be the First Degree Murder trialcharge related to the robbery incident. The jury is going to be instructed to consider the evidence that pertains to the First Degree Felony Murder Charge only. Is there any potential juror who feels you will have difficultywith the case because of the fact that you know in advance the [Respondent] has been previously convicted of offenses arising out of the incident? One prospective juror responded that he was not sure he could be fair in deciding the case because he did not believe that [the Respondent] should be recharged for something he already got sentence[d] for. The court excused that prospective juror. During its case in chief, the State presented the testimony of a number of witnesses concerning the events underlying the robbery. The State also read into the record a transcript of Respondent's oral and written statements to the police and his testimony from the first trial, in each of which Respondent gave essentially the same accounts of the acts in question. Respondent's defense case consisted only of his offering into evidence a photograph of the two knives found in the immediate vicinity of the murder victim's body. The trial court and counsel discussed how the jury should be instructed on the felony murder charge. The court agreed to Respondent's request that the jury be instructed that he had been convicted of second degree murder. The court added, though, that the jury should also be informed of the procedural history of the case, including that Respondent had been convicted of robbery. The court reasoned that, without the additional information about the robbery conviction and the procedural history that necessitated the retrial, the jury would wonder why the felony murder charge was being layered atop a second degree murder conviction. Over Respondent's objection, the trial court instructed the jury: The primary charge ... or, the charge that is before you ... the only charge that is before you, again, is this notion of felony murder ... first degree felony murder, to distinguish it from another kind of felony murder .... In order to convict [the Respondent] of first degree felony murder, in the context of robbery or robbery with a deadly weapon, the State must prove, (1) that the [Respondent] committed a robbery; (2) that the [Respondent] killed [the victim]; (3) that he had the intent to commit the robbery before or at the time of committing the act that caused [the victim]'s death, and that the act which resulted in [the victim]'s death occurred during the course of and in furtherance of the objective of committing the robbery.    Let's talk about what robbery is and I'm going to tell you what second degree murder, for purposes of this case, is. I'm going to have a little more discussion about procedure.    Robbery or robbery with a deadly weapon, if a deadly weapon is involved, is the taking and carrying away of property from another person by force or the threat of force with the intent to deprive the victim of the property. To convict someone of robbery, in other words, the State would have to prove: (1) that the [Respondent] took property from [the victim]'s possession and control; (2) that he took the property by force or threat of force; and (3) that he intended to deprive [the victim] of that property. Okay. The elements of the offense of second degree murder, for which [Respondent] here stands convicted, are as follows: the second degree murder is the killing of another person with either the intent to kill, or the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result. Second degree murder does not require premeditation or deliberation. In order to convict someone of second degree murder, the State would have to prove, (1) that the [Respondent]'s conduct caused [the victim]'s death; that he engaged in deadly conduct either with intent to kill [the victim], or with intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be likely to result; and lastly that there were no mitigating circumstances.    I'm going to tell you also, over at least one party's objection, the [Respondent] here stands convicted of the underlying robbery.    The question of whether [Respondent] committed second degree murder is not before you. The question of whether he committed robbery or robbery with a deadly weapon is not before you. The only question before you is whether the sequence of events and the interrelationship of the events amounted to first degree felony murder as I just described it. (Emphasis added.) Both the State and Respondent excepted to the instruction, as both were concerned that the jury would wonder why it was called to judge a crime that, seemingly, had been judged by a prior jury. In an attempt to clarify this potential confusion, the trial court delivered an extra word of caution to the jury, to which Respondent's counsel excepted: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this admonition in an abundance of caution. You know that there had been prior proceedings in connection with this case. There's an exhibit in here, the one that was read this morning, from a prior proceeding. You're ... you are cautioned to consider the evidence that has been presented to you. And, you are asked and you are instructed not to speculate as to how the case got here today, what its procedural history is. We have told you that the question of whether a robbery occurred is not before you. The question of whether murder in the second degree variety occurred is not before you. The only question is whether the circumstances and the proof or the circumstances as proven amounted to first degree felony murder as we have defined that. The jury retired to its deliberations, which concluded with its returning a verdict finding Respondent guilty of first degree felony murder. Respondent argued on appeal to the Court of Special Appeals that the trial court erred when it informed the prospective jurors about the prior murder and robbery convictions and, in its final instructions, told the jury not to consider those two convictions and the only question before you [the jury] is whether the sequence of events and the interrelationship of the events amounted to first degree felony murder as I just described it. Respondent contended that the court's instructions amounted to the use of collateral estoppel against him. He specified that the instructions directed the jury to assume, rather than decide for itself, the existence of the ultimate facts that made out the actus reus of the crime of felony murder, and thereby deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Allen v. State, 192 Md.App. 625, 638, 995 A.2d 1013, 1021 (2010) (herein  Allen II ). The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Respondent and reversed the felony murder conviction, with the direction that the case be remanded for a new trial. Id. at 638, 995 A.2d at 1021. The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted to answer a single question that we have recast, as follows: [2] May the doctrine of collateral estoppel be employed at a criminal trial by instructing the jury at a retrial on a charge of felony murder that the defendant has been convicted of murdering and robbing the victim, and the jury need only decide when the defendant formed the intent to rob the victim? For the following reasons, we answer no to that question.