Opinion ID: 2076870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petitioner Waived Her Right to Complain About the Timing and Effectiveness of Her Jury Trial Waiver

Text: We hold that Boulden waived her right to complain about the timing and effectiveness of the jury trial waiver colloquy. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-131(a), [6] our scope of appellate review is ordinarily limited to an issue that was raised in or decided by the trial court. Rule 8-131(a) has two purposes: ensuring fairness to all parties and the promotion of the orderly administration of the law. Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 103, 976 A.2d 1072, 1079 (2009). We explained in Robinson that those purposes are advanced by requiring counsel to bring the position of their client to the attention of the lower court at the trial so that the trial court can pass upon, and possibly correct any errors in the proceedings. For those reasons, Md. Rule 8-131(a) requires an appellant who desires to contest a court's ruling or other error on appeal to have made a timely objection at trial. The failure to do so bars the appellant from obtaining review of the claimed error, as a matter of right. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We may decide, however, an issue that was not raised or decided by the trial court if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal. Md. Rule 8-131(a). We exercise that discretion only in an appropriate case and where doing so furthers, rather than undermines, the purposes of the rule. Robinson, 410 Md. at 104, 976 A.2d at 1079. We may consider an unpreserved issue only when it is clear that it will not work an unfair prejudice to the parties or to the [trial] court. Jones v. State, 379 Md. 704, 714, 843 A.2d 778, 784 (2004). We stated in Robinson that [i]t would be unfair to the trial court and opposing counsel, moreover, if the appellate court were to review on direct appeal an unobjected to claim of error under circumstances suggesting that the lack of objection might have been strategic, rather than inadvertent. 410 Md. at 104, 976 A.2d at 1080. This is true even where the complained of error is of Constitutional dimension. Id. at 106, 976 A.2d at 1081. In Robinson, the defendant complained that his constitutional right to a public trial was violated because the trial court, believing that defendant's family was intimidating witnesses, excluded the family from the courtroom. The defendant did not object. We held that, notwithstanding the alleged violation of his constitutional right to a public trial, he waived his right to complain about the exclusion. Id. at 106, 976 A.2d at 1081. We observed that the right to a public trial, though fundamental is not within the `narrow band of rights that courts have traditionally required an individual knowingly and intelligently [to] relinquish or abandon in order to waive the right or claim.' Id. at 107, 976 A.2d at 1082 (quoting Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 138, 691 A.2d 1255, 1262 (1997)). We distinguished the right to a public trial from, among others, the right to a jury trial, which [is] absolute and can only be foregone by the defendant's affirmative `intelligent and knowing' waiver. . . . Id. In Taylor v. State, 381 Md. 602, 851 A.2d 551 (2004), the petitioner complained that his second trial and conviction constituted impermissible double jeopardy after the trial court declared a mistrial in his first trial. His first trial ended in a mistrial on 11 September 2001 when the courthouse closed due to the events of 9/11. Although he objected when the judge declared a mistrial, he failed to do so on double jeopardy grounds. He was re-tried and convicted. On appeal, he argued that the trial judge declared improperly a mistrial without Taylor's consent, and that the mistrial was not based on manifest necessity. This Court held that he failed to preserve the double jeopardy issue for appellate review because no objections or a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy were made. Id. at 612, 851 A.2d at 557. We noted that Taylor filed several motions after the mistrial, but never complained in them on double jeopardy grounds. Id. at 627, 851 A.2d at 565. We recognized, as we did in Robinson, that his failure to object may have been based on a strategic choice. Instead of raising the issue prior to or during the retrial, petitioner waited until after an unfavorable judgment had been made and a sentence rendered, and then only raised it during the appellate process. Petitioner thus availed himself of the benefits of his counsel's trial tactic of agreeing to the mistrial by selecting a new jury, i.e., he relieved himself of his counsel's concern that the September 11, 2001 jury would not be able to concentrate on his case due to the national tragedy, and, when a negative result was procured, only then did he raise the issue of double jeopardy. Id. at 626-27, 851 A.2d at 565 (emphasis in original). We concluded that [b]ecause no trial judge ruled on the double jeopardy issue, Md. Rule 8-131(a) provides that the issue is not properly before this Court. Id. Petitioner looks to Martinez v. State, 309 Md. 124, 522 A.2d 950 (1987), Mitchell v. State, 337 Md. 509, 654 A.2d 1309 (1995), and United States v. Saadya, 750 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir.1985), for support of her argument that the waiver determination can be made on the record only before trial commences. Her reliance on these cases is misplaced, however, because they involved violations of the defendant's Constitutional trial rights, not violations of a purely procedural nature as is the case here. In Martinez, we considered whether a defendant may waive the right to a jury trial after the trial has concluded. The trial court asked the defendant whether any person, either inside or outside of this courthouse, made [him] any promise, or has threatened [him] in anyway in order to have [him] give up [his] right to a jury trial? Id. at 129, 522 A.2d at 952. The defendant answered, [y]es. Id. The transcript also revealed that the defendant was taking several medications to treat psychiatric conditions and that the affirmative response to the court's question may have been the result of a language misunderstanding. Id. at 127-28, 135, 522 A.2d at 951-52, 955. The intermediate appellate court resolved that the waiver was not voluntary and ordered a limited remand so that Martinez's responses could be clarified. Id. at 135, 522 A.2d at 955. We reversed, holding that a limited remand to determine whether the defendant waived voluntarily his right to a jury trial was improper. We stated that Rule 4-246 requires that the defendant's waiver be on the record before the trial commences. Id. (emphasis in original). Therefore, we held that he was entitled to a new trial because the record did not disclose a knowing and voluntary waiver of a jury trial. Id. at 136, 522 A.2d at 956. See also Countess v. State, 286 Md. 444, 457-58, 459, 460-61, 408 A.2d 1302, 1309-10, (1979) (consolidated appeal in which we held that the failure to establish that a defendant's waiver was knowing and voluntary warrants a reversal of the sentence and conviction). In Mitchell, the trial court failed to conduct the proper inquiry into whether the defendant had valid reasons for appearing without counsel on the date set for trial. The Court of Special Appeals ordered a limited remand to determine if his reasons were meritorious. 337 Md. at 515, 654 A.2d at 1312. We held that a limited remand was impermissible because [i]nquiry into the merits of a defendant's reasons for appearing without counsel must be conducted on the record prior to trial; therefore, Martinez is not distinguishable on that ground. Id. at 517, 654 A.2d at 1313 (emphasis in original). We explained that if we affirmed the order of a limited remand, the defendant would have to reconstruct his actions [and recall dates and conversations with the Office of the Public Defender]. The potential prejudice to Mitchell is obvious, and a limited remand in this case would be fundamentally unfair. Id. We stated further that, [t]his case is much like Martinez and other cases in which the knowing and voluntary nature of a jury trial waiver is at issue. In those cases, our concern has been that there could be subtle coercion that would not appear on the record. Id. at 518, 654 A.2d at 1313. Therefore, we held that a [f]ailure to conduct the Rule 4-215(d) inquiry at the proper time . . . mandates a new trial. Id. at 518, 654 A.2d at 1314. The federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in United States v. Saadya, 750 F.2d 1419 (1985). In Saadya, the defendants failed to make both a written waiver, as required by federal Rule 23(a), [7] and an oral waiver of their right to jury trial in open court. Id. at 1421. The appellate court refused to hold that the failure to obtain a waiver from the defendants was a technical violation of the rule. Id. at 1420-21. It also rejected the government's suggestion to remand the case to the district court for a determination of whether appellants and their former counsel reached a decision to waive a jury trial. Id. at 1421. The court concluded that, although the Rule does not include expressly a time requirement, [a] defendant's waiver of his right to jury trial must appear on the record prior to the time the trial commences. The absence of a waiver on the record of the right to trial by jury cannot be remedied by subsequent proceedings on remand. Id. at 1422. In Valiton v. State, 119 Md.App. 139, 704 A.2d 478 (1998), the Court of Special Appeals considered virtually the very issue that we consider in the present case. Valiton was on trial for escape from the Allegany County Detention Center. After the close of the State's case, the trial court realized that Valiton's waiver of his right to jury trial had not been placed on the record. Defense counsel then placed the waiver on the record in the following colloquy: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Valiton, I've talked to you at some length about the options of a court trial as opposed to a jury trial and at a jury trial I explained to you that you and I would help select the jurors who are picked from the voter rolls here in Allegany County. And I went over with you some of the strategy and options that were available in either a court trial or a jury trial and did I to the best of your knowledge explain the options available to you. MR. VALITON: Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And it's my understanding, since you relied somewhat on my view of the proceedings, that in light of my statements to you that you have elected to choose, you choose to be tried by the Court, is that correct? MR. VALITON: That's correct. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that it [sic] basically I told you what the options were and suggested that this was a decision you had to make, is that correct? MR. VALITON: Correct. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And have you made this decision voluntarily of your own free will to forego a jury trial and be tried by His Honor, []? MR. VALITON: I have. THE COURT: All right, gentleman, thank you very much. Just to follow that up, and perhaps you noted it, but let me do it. Mr. Valiton, jury trial, of course, meaning twelve persons selected at random from Allegany County. The jury has to conclude unanimously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone can be convicted. That is the further right of jury trial. You understand that through [DEFENSE COUNSEL], is that correct, sir? MR. VALITON: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, you may be seated, gentlemen. Then the Clerk will note that selection at this point in time of the Court trial. Id. at 143-44, 704 A.2d at 479-80. Over vigorous defense objection, the court permitted the State to amend the dates of the charges to reflect testimony of a detention center official, but granted to the defense a 28-day continuance. Id. at 142, 704 A.2d at 479. On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, Valiton claimed that Rule 4-246 requires an on-the-record colloquy before the commencement of trial before a valid jury trial waiver could be found to have occurred. Id. at 145, 704 A.2d at 480. Therefore, he argued that the jury trial waiver, conducted in the middle of trial, violated the Rule, and, as a result, he was entitled to a new trial. Id. at 145, 704 A.2d at 480-81. The appellate court conceded that the waiver inquiry did not comply with the Rule because it was not conducted before trial, but nonetheless concluded that Valiton waived his right to complain. Id. at 146, 704 A.2d at 481. The intermediate appellate court distinguished Valiton's case from Martinez. Unlike in this case, the waiver inquiry in Martinez was timely conducted and the appellant did not complain that the waiver colloquy occurred at a time not prescribed by the rule. Rather, the appellant in Martinez argued that his waiver was not voluntary, and the Court of Appeals was concerned with the ultimate reliability of the jury trial waiver. 119 Md.App. at 146, 704 A.2d at 481. The intermediate appellate court acknowledged that we referenced the timing of the waiver inquiry in Martinez, but found it apparent that the Court focused on the validity of the waiver, and determined only that jury trial waivers are not reliable when conducted post-trial. At that stage of the proceedings, shortly before sentencing, it noted that a defendant may feel inhibited from asserting that the waiver was involuntary or he may proceed, hoping to be rewarded by agreeing to the waiver. Id. at 148, 704 A.2d at 482. Because the waiver colloquy was conducted at the close of the State's case and not at the conclusion of trial, the Valiton court determined that the case does not present the precise concerns that are evident in a post-trial waiver situation. Id. Furthermore, unlike in Martinez, where we were concerned with the voluntariness of the defendant's waiver, there was no question in Valiton that the waiver was involuntary or unknowing. [T]he record reflect[ed] that appellant was fully informed as to the nature of a jury trial. . . . Id. at 149, 704 A.2d at 482. The court found most significant that Valiton never voiced any complaint to the delayed waiver inquiry. When the court first realized at the end of the State's case that no waiver inquiry had occurred, appellant's counsel did not object. Yet the record is devoid of any suggestion of the slightest coercion or pressure upon appellant or counsel to avoid `rocking the boat' at that time. Id. The court continued, however, stating that [p]erhaps appellant's failure to object immediately, standing alone, would not convince us that appellant waived his right to assert a challenge on appeal with respect to the untimeliness of the jury trial waiver inquiry. We need not reach that issue, however. In this case, a lengthy continuance of the trial followed the jury trial waiver inquiry. During the four-week hiatus, appellant did not lodge any objection or complaint to the court concerning the jury trial waiver. Even if appellant was initially unaware of the content of Rule 4-246, or later had second thoughts, or felt intimidated or pressured while he was in court, he certainly could have raised the matter during the intervening four weeks that preceded the presentation of the defense case. Instead, appellant failed to challenge the timing or validity of the jury trial waiver. It is appellant's silence during the four week continuance that most distinguishes this case from Martinez.  Id. at 149-50, 704 A.2d at 483. Recognizing that the ultimate purpose of the rule is to ensure that the waiver is knowing and voluntary, the court determined that, under the circumstances of that case, Valiton waived his right to complain about compliance with the timing of the waiver colloquy. Id. at 150, 704 A.2d at 483. See also State v. Barr, 2008 Ohio 2176, 2008 WL 1972738 (Ohio Ct.App. 8 May 2008) (late filing of written jury trial waiver was cured by the court's colloquy with the defendant when it realized the error mid-trial and the colloquy established that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to jury trial). We determine likewise that Boulden waived her right to complain about the tardy jury trial waiver colloquy. At the beginning of the trial, Petitioner did not object when asked by the trial judge are we going forward with a court trial? Instead, defense counsel answered affirmatively. Moreover, defense counsel could have objected to the failure to place on the record Boulden's waiver of her right to trial by jury when the State brought the error to everyone's attention at the close of the State's case-in-chief and before the defense was to put on its case. The defense could have moved for a mistrial. Although there was not a 28-day continuance in Boulden's case, as in Valiton, approximately two months passed after the conclusion of Boulden's trial until the hearing on her motion for new trial and sentencing. She filed a motion for a new trial and an amendment to that motion one month after trial ended, in neither of which was the timing of the jury trial waiver raised. Petitioner, who was represented by counsel throughout the trial and post-verdict proceedings, had ample opportunity to object to the tardy jury trial waiver. We agree also with the reasoning in Valiton that a jury trial waiver, that otherwise complies with Rule 4-246, placed on the record at the close of the State's case-in-chief, but before the defense commences its presentation of evidence, is distinguished from Martinez because the post-trial inquiry process proposed in Martinez implicated the voluntariness of the defendant's waiver, not simply a technical rule violation. In other words, the waiver in the present case violated the rule of procedure, but the waiver in Martinez violated the defendant's core constitutional right to a jury trial. There is no indication in this record that Boulden's trial waiver was anything but knowing and voluntary. She responded that: she understood what a jury is; she had a constitutional right to a jury trial; she wished to waive her constitutional right to a jury trial and proceed in a court trial; no one offered or promised her anything in exchange for her waiver of a trial by jury; she was waiving her right to trial by jury voluntarily, freely, and of her own free will; and, she did not have any questions regarding her right to a jury trial. The trial court, having the opportunity to view Petitioner's demeanor and listen to her responses, was satisfied that she waived her right to a jury trial. We will not upset that finding based solely on a technical violation of the timing requirement of the Rule. The present case also is readily distinguished from Saadya and Mitchell. In Saadya, as in Martinez, there was no otherwise valid waiver on the record at any time to overcome strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the federal rule. Similarly, in Mitchell, the trial court did not conduct a waiver inquiry to determine why the defendant did not appear with counsel. Here, the concerns that we and other courts have expressed with a post-trial inquiry into the waiver of constitutional rights are not present. The court conducted a colloquy after the commencement of trial, but before the defense was called upon to present its case. If no such colloquy had taken place, or one that did not indicate that Boulden waived her right to trial by jury knowingly and voluntarily, then a different result would obtain. Although the right to trial by jury is absolute, the Constitution requires only that the waiver be voluntary and knowing. See Robinson, 410 Md. at 107, 976 A.2d at 1082. There is no indication in this record of subtle coercion such as might taint confidence where a post-trial waiver situation was presented. We decline to hold that any waiver that occurs after commencement of trial, but prior to the end of trial, is coercive inherently. Moreover, there is the consideration of whether the failure to object to the late waiver was a matter of trial strategy in the present case. We stated in Robinson, if the failure to object is, or even might be, a matter of strategy, then overlooking the lack of objection simply encourages defense gamesmanship. 410 Md. at 104, 976 A.2d at 1080. Boulden and her defense counsel may have thought they had a free look at the State's case-in-chief. We have recognized on several occasions that `any experienced lawyer worth his salt in the trial of criminal matters knows that there are many, many instances where trial before the court is in the best interest of the accused.' Martinez, 309 Md. at 132, 522 A.2d at 954 (quoting State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. at 19, 273 A.2d at 160 (1971)). There are many strategic reasons for electing a court trial instead of a jury trial. For example, [t]he defendant may want to waive a jury trial when he feels that a jury panel composed of members of the community will be prejudiced against his case. This may be especially true when the defendant's alleged crime has received wide publicity or is particularly gruesome. The defendant may also feel that a judge would be less apt than a jury to draw negative conclusions from the defendant's appearance or manner of speech. Or, he may merely prefer that the arbiter of his fate be one person trained in the law rather than twelve laymen. Abeokuto, 391 Md. at 318, 893 A.2d at 1034 (quoting Zimmerman, 261 Md. at 19, 273 A.2d at 160). Such a circumstance may be present where, as here, the defendant is charged with child abuse. See id. at 318, 893 A.2d at 1034 (Being charged with the brutal murder of a small child might present a basis to [waive the right to a jury trial.]). At that crossroad, and knowing of the violation of the Rule, Petitioner, having evaluated the strength (or weakness) of the State's case, chose to remain silent and continue with a court trial, rather than demand a new jury trial to which she was still entitled.