Opinion ID: 1955198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Function of the Jury

Text: The instructions which the judge gave informed the jury that it was bound by the law as explained by him. He said: Even if you don't agree with it, you must accept that law and apply it to the facts as you find them to be. You are not a legislative body. You have no authority to change the Maryland criminal law. So you will take the law as I explain it to you and then you will apply it to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence. And he told the jury that it was the sole judge of facts in a criminal case.... But he did not give the jury the law of self-defense. Contrary to his duty, the judge denied to the jury the opportunity to apply the law of perfect self-defense and imperfect self-defense to its findings of fact, according to tenets of that law as explained by the judge as an authoritative figure. We have concluded that the evidence here was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to engender the doctrine of self-defense. Then the burden should shift to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dykes did not kill in self-defense. The judge precluded the shifting of the burden. The failure to give the instructions in the circumstances was reversible error; it stymied the function of the jury to determine the issue of self-defense and deprived Dykes of his entitlement to have the jury so determine. Wilson, 261 Md. at 566, 276 A.2d 214. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and award Dykes a new trial. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SOMERSET COUNTY FOR A NEW TRIAL; COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY SOMERSET COUNTY.