Opinion ID: 3160421
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Assessment of Prejudice

Text: We next turn to the issue of whether Jones’s unreasonable delay prejudiced the State. Our first step is to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding whether, for purposes of determining whether the doctrine of laches bars an individual’s ability to obtain coram nobis relief, prejudice involves solely the State’s ability to defend against the coram nobis petition. At the outset, we conclude that, for purposes of determining whether laches bars an individual’s ability to seek coram nobis relief, prejudice involves not only the State’s ability to defend against the coram nobis petition, but also the State’s ability to reprosecute. For one thing, “[p]rejudice is ‘generally held to be any[]thing that places the [opposing party] in a less favorable position.’” State Ctr., 438 Md. at 586, 92 A.3d at 481 (quoting Liddy, 398 Md. at 244, 919 A.2d at 1284). It also bears repeating that laches is an “equitable defense[.]” State Ctr., 438 Md. at 604, 92 A.3d at 491 (citation omitted). It - 33 - would be inequitable—and, indeed, nonsensical—for us to blind ourselves to the State’s ability to reprosecute. Whether in a coram nobis matter or in a new trial, the State’s interest is precisely the same: to successfully prosecute an alleged violation of the law. As far as coram nobis petitions in Maryland are concerned, we join the other courts that have held that, for purposes of determining whether laches bars a filing in which a petitioner challenges a conviction, prejudice involves not only the State’s ability to defend against the filing, but also the State’s ability to reprosecute. See Kirby, 822 N.E.2d at 1100 (“[P]rejudice exists when the unreasonable delay operates to materially diminish a reasonable likelihood of successful re-prosecution.” (Citation omitted)); Johnson, 714 N.W.2d at 838 (same) (quoting Kirby, 822 N.E.2d at 1100); In re Douglas, 200 Cal. App. 4th 236, 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“[A] substantial delay will prejudice the [government]’s ability to . . . retr[y a petitioner] in the event that a judgment is set aside on habeas corpus many years after the conviction.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Woodberry v. State, 101 P.3d 727, 731 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004) (“The length of th[e] delay is unreasonable, and the [government] would undoubtedly be prejudiced if forced to retry Woodberry.”); Ex Parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“[P]rejudice [is] anything that places the [government] in a less favorable position, including prejudice to the [government]’s ability to retry a defendant[.]”); United States v. Darnell, 716 F.2d 479, 480 (7th Cir. 1983) (“The government’s ability to meet successfully the allegations of the motion or to present a case against the defendant if he [or she] is granted a new trial may be greatly diminished by the passage of time.” (Footnote omitted)); Telink, 24 F.3d at 48 (“In making a determination of prejudice, the effect of the delay on both the - 34 - government’s ability to respond to the petition and the government’s ability to mount a retrial are relevant.” (Citing Darnell, 716 F.2d at 480)). To support the contention that, for purposes of determining whether the doctrine of laches bars an individual from obtaining coram nobis relief, prejudice involves only the State’s ability to defend against the coram nobis petition, Jones relies on a series of cases from other jurisdictions as well as one case from the Court of Special Appeals, including: (1) Darnell, 716 F.2d at 481; (2) Moguel, 184 Md. App. at 478, 966 A.2d at 971; (3) Bartz, 740 So. 2d at 1245; (4) Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998), approved, 758 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2000); and (5) Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1342 (7th Cir. 1992). In Darnell, 716 F.2d at 481, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: “Darnell’s delay has prejudiced the government in its ability to establish the voluntariness of the 1961 plea of guilty.” In Moguel, 184 Md. App. at 478, 966 A.2d at 971, the Court of Special Appeals stated: “Th[e] delay rendered the State unable to rebut any of [the petitioner]’s testimony were he to testify at a merits hearing, and, therefore, prejudiced the State in its ability to defend the validity of the plea.” Jones also relies on two cases from the District Court of Appeal of Florida. In Bartz, 740 So. 2d at 1245, the District Court of Appeal of Florida stated: “[T]he State has undoubtedly been prejudiced by the delay, as it cannot now contest Bartz’s allegations because the transcript below has long since been destroyed.”). And, in Gregersen, 714 So. 2d at 1196, the District Court of Appeal of Florida stated: “[T]here is no transcript available of the plea colloquy. . . . [The petitioner]’s claim is barred by laches.” (Citations omitted). Finally, in Oliver, 961 F.2d at 1342, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: - 35 - “Oliver’s seventeen-year delay in bringing his [post-conviction] action prejudiced the government in its ability to respond to the merits of Oliver’s allegations because of its destruction of records after ten years and the unavailability of any other means of producing transcripts of the guilty plea and sentencing.” (Footnote omitted). In each of these cases, a court held that a delay in filing prejudiced a government’s ability to respond to the filing; thus, the Court did not need to address whether the delay in filing also prejudiced the government’s ability to reprosecute. In none of these cases did a Court indicate that prejudice involves only a government’s ability to defend against a filing; indeed, as noted above, in Darnell, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated the exact opposite. See Darnell, 716 F.2d at 480 (“The government’s ability to meet successfully the allegations of the motion or to present a case against the defendant if he [or she] is granted a new trial may be greatly diminished by the passage of time.” (Footnote omitted)); see also Bartz, 740 So. 2d at 1245 (The District Court of Appeal of Florida cited Remp v. State, 248 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970) (“The inordinate delay has made a retrial exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.” (Citation omitted))). To establish prejudice, the State need not prove that the delay makes it impossible to reprosecute a petitioner; instead, the State must prove simply that the delay places the State “in a less favorable position” for purposes of reprosecuting the petitioner. State Ctr., 438 Md. at 586, 92 A.3d at 481 (quoting Liddy, 398 Md. at 244, 919 A.2d at 1284) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Baxter v. State, 636 N.E.2d 151, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (“Prejudice as to the [government]’s ability to retry a petitioner does not require a showing of the impossibility to present any case at all.” (Citation omitted)). - 36 - In this case, the State has certainly met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones’s thirteen-year delay placed the State in a less favorable position for purposes of reprosecuting Jones. At the hearing on the coram nobis petition, the State called as a witness Officer Johnson, the one who had seen Jones on April 3, 1999 (the day of Jones’s arrest). Officer Johnson testified that, even after reviewing the statement of charges and an offense report he had prepared in connection with the case, he had no independent recollection of Jones. Officer Johnson also testified that he had looked for, but could not find, the folder from the Baltimore Police Department for Jones’s case. It is difficult to imagine anything more prejudicial than the circumstance that the State’s only eyewitness can no longer testify about what the eyewitness saw.22 Indeed, due to the circumstances—namely, Officer Johnson’s inability to remember the case and locate the case folder—the State was placed in a substantially less favorable position. We are unpersuaded by Jones’s reliance on Lacy v. State, 491 N.E.2d 520, 521 (Ind. 1986), in which the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the government failed to meet its burden to prove that it had been prejudiced by a delay in filing where the government “failed to present any evidence regarding the availability or recollection of the investigating officers or the existence or content of the police investigative file.” By contrast, here, at the hearing on the coram nobis petition, the State called Officer Johnson, the State’s only 22 Because the State has proven that it was in a less favorable position (i.e., has been prejudiced) for purposes of reprosecuting Jones, we need not address whether the State has proven that it has been prejudiced for purposes of defending against the coram nobis petition. - 37 - eyewitness, who testified that he could not remember the case. Additionally, Officer Johnson’s statement of probable cause was a part of the record in the case; Officer Johnson’s offense report, however, is not contained in the record.23 We are not convinced by Jones’s theory that the State failed to demonstrate prejudice because it could offer Officer Johnson’s offense report as his past recollection recorded under Maryland Rule 5-802.1(e). For one thing, even if the State could successfully do so, the State would nonetheless be prejudiced by being forced to rely on a document instead of testimony—which would have constituted more compelling evidence. For another thing, as the State maintained at oral argument, a conviction based solely on an offense report would understandably give rise to challenges under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We find no merit in the contention that the State failed to prove that Jones’s thirteenyear delay prejudiced the State because the State failed to prove that it used due diligence to search for evidence in Jones’s case. To support his contention, Jones cites Kirby, 822 23 Jones also misplaces his reliance on Kirby, 822 N.E.2d at 1101, 1101 n.5, in which the Court of Appeals of Indiana concluded that “[t]he evidence [] demonstrate[d] that the [government] was unable to locate all the victims of Kirby’s offenses and was unaware of their present addresses[,]” but stated in a footnote: We are reluctant to accept [a prosecutor]’s affidavit statement that, in his twenty-two years of experience, he believes that even if all witnesses to Kirby’s offenses were found, “the lack of knowledge of specific details that is certain to be lost over a thirty (30) year period would greatly diminish the [government]’s ability to present its case in chief, as proof of prejudice.” (Brackets omitted). By contrast, here, the State relied not on any affidavit, but instead on the testimony of the State’s only eyewitness. - 38 - N.E.2d at 1100 (“The [government] has an obligation to use due diligence in its investigation of the availability of evidence and witnesses.” (Citation omitted)). This Court has never imposed on a party that asserted laches a duty to use due diligence to search for available evidence, but, to the extent that such a duty exists, the State satisfied it in this case. At the hearing on the coram nobis petition, the State called as a witness Officer Johnson, the State’s only eyewitness; elicited that Officer Johnson could not remember Jones, even after reviewing the statement of charges and offense report; and elicited that Officer Johnson had looked for, but could not find, the folder from the Baltimore Police Department for Jones’s case. Finally, Jones raises a series of contentions not aimed at the doctrine of laches analysis, but consisting rather of what appear to be equitable arguments that, even if the State met its burden to prove that Jones’s delay prejudiced the State, laches should not apply, namely because: (1) Jones alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary; (2) Jones is facing collateral consequences; and (3) Jones has served his sentences for his 1999 conviction and his violation of the order of probation.24 All of these circumstances pertain to the coram nobis petition’s merits, not whether the doctrine of laches barred the coram nobis petition. Because we conclude that laches barred the coram nobis petition, we do not address the coram nobis petition’s merits. 24 To the extent that Jones contends that it would not make a difference if his conviction were vacated and he were not successfully reprosecuted, Jones’s own position in the coram nobis petition undermines his contention. Specifically, Jones filed the coram nobis petition for the express purpose of no longer being subject to an enhanced federal sentence. Thus, Jones acknowledges that a conviction can have consequences other than the sentence for the conviction itself. - 39 -