Opinion ID: 2401009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court's Witnesses

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to call, as court's witnesses, Baker's mother, Ms. Williams, and Lori James, a social worker who prepared an extensive background of Baker's family. Preliminarily, we note that it lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge whether to call a person to testify as a court witness and that decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Thomas v. State, 301 Md. 294, 312, 483 A.2d 6, 15 (1984) (citing Patterson v. State, 275 Md. 563, 581, 342 A.2d 660, 670-71 (1975) and Scarborough v. State, 50 Md. App. 276, 282, 437 A.2d 672, 676 (1981), cert. denied, 292 Md. 639 (1982)), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1856, 85 L.Ed.2d 153 (1985). This Court has stated that questions relating to a trial court's discretion are much better decided by the trial judges than by appellate courts, and the decisions of such judges should only be disturbed where it is apparent that some serious error or abuse of discretion or autocratic action has occurred. Northwest'n Nat. Ins. Co. v. Rosoff, 195 Md. 421, 436, 73 A.2d 461, 467 (1950). Analyzing appellate review of discretionary decisions for the Court of Special Appeals in Thodos v. Bland, 75 Md. App. 700, 542 A.2d 1307, cert. denied, 313 Md. 689, 548 A.2d 128 (1988), Judge Robert M. Bell succinctly stated the following principle: [W]hen the consequences of a particular exercise of discretion are clear, i.e., one result is clearly unjust and the other, clearly not, the limits of the exercise of discretion are narrow. On the other hand, when the consequences are not so clear, i.e., no result is clearly just or unjust, the limits of the exercise of discretion are considerably broader. 75 Md. App. at 712, 542 A.2d at 1313 (citation omitted). In the instant case, Baker made the decision not to call two witnesses, Lori James and his mother, but claims that the trial judge abused his discretion by not calling these two individuals as court witnesses and thereby accepting Baker's assertion that the witnesses' testimony might prove damaging. We reject this contention for a number of reasons. First, prior to the 1988 enactment of Maryland Rule 1-501 (effective January 1, 1989), a principal reason a trial court called a witness itself was when neither of the parties could vouch for the witness's veracity and the witness possessed information material to the cause of action. Because of this so-called voucher rule, a party might request that the judge call an individual as a court witness and conduct the direct examination since a party could not call and then impeach its own witness. See Patterson, 275 Md. at 568-69, 342 A.2d at 664 (explaining that, [i]n those cases where neither the prosecution nor the defense is willing to vouch for the veracity of the witness and the witness appears to possess material evidence[,] the invocation of the procedure is generally held to be within the sound discretion of the trial court; some courts limit the procedure to those cases where material injustice would otherwise result). In such situations, both the State and defense were then afforded opportunities to cross-examine and impeach the court's witness. Rule 1-501 abrogated the common-law voucher rule and permitted [t]he credibility of a witness [to] be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness, thus eliminating the need for the court to call witnesses under these circumstances. [2] In Spence v. State, 321 Md. 526, 583 A.2d 715 (1991), this Court reiterated the fact that the voucher rule was abolished in 1989 by Rule 1-501. The Spence Court also asserted that the need for calling one as a court's witness has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated. 321 Md. at 528 n. 1, 583 A.2d at 716 n. 1. See also Brown v. State, 80 Md. App. 187, 191 n. 1, 560 A.2d 605, 607 n. 1 (1989) (stating that Rule 1-501 eliminates the common law `voucher' rule and obviates the need for court's witnesses). Finally, relying on the holding in Spence, the Court of Special Appeals later stated that the need to call a court's witness, at least insofar as fact witnesses are concerned, simply `no longer exists' for most purposes. Nance v. State, 93 Md. App. 475, 485, 613 A.2d 428, 433 (1992) (quoting Wright v. State, 89 Md. App. 604, 610 n. 3, 598 A.2d 1214, 1217 n. 3 (1991), cert. denied, 325 Md. 620, 602 A.2d 711 (1992)). Although other reasons for calling a court's witness may exist, a principal reason the court would do so has been eliminated by Rule 1-501. In addition, to say that a trial court has discretion to call its own witness is not the same as imposing upon that court a duty to call such a witness. [3] See Carter v. State, 66 Md. App. 567, 577-80, 505 A.2d 545, 551-52 (1986) (concluding that court's failure to call a witness in murder trial clearly was not an abuse of discretion). Furthermore, if Judge Whitfill violated Baker's clearly expressed desire not to call these two witnesses, and their testimony did prove damaging, there might be substantial grounds for reversal. In addition, although they freely discussed the matter, neither the State nor the defense specifically requested that the court call Ms. Williams or Ms. James as court's witnesses. In fact, Judge Whitfill originally raised the possibility of calling these two witnesses himself, recognizing the difficulties this issue presented: Let me tell you what I was toying with, or the thought [that] had crossed my mind, was to call in the two witnesses as the Court's witnesses. I think the Court's entitled to have information, and I am not sure to what extent the Defendant has the right to say I will deny the Court that information. I invite counsel's comments on such a thought. It's not a ruling. It's a thought.       I certainly have, in less serious cases, without asking a Defendant what do you think, called on the Defendant's parents and said I want to hear from you. I never had anybody object to it, and say you can't do this. I am in control. So, it's a new situation that I face. And yet, my natural instincts are to say that I want to hear from these two people, and that I think I have a right to hear, and that Mr. Baker might as well convince me that I should not do that even after I express that as my natural inclination. Appellant's brief raises the argument that the court improperly left to [Baker himself] the decision of whether or not the testimony of Lori James and [Baker's] mother was mitigating or damaging. Such a decision is one that must be left to counsel's determination. Instead of calling the witnesses, however, defense counsel acquiesced in Baker's desire not to call either individual to testify. If Baker's attorneys believed it was within their purview to decide whether the witnesses should or should not be called, as a tactical or strategic matter, then they could have called the witnesses. [4] Upon reflection, the sentencing judge recognized his discretion to call the witnesses and decided not to do so. The judge stated his decision as follows: It would appear to me, then, in view of Mr. Baker's having stated that, in his opinion, this evidence could be damaging, it takes it out of the area where... I should exercise discretion and call those witnesses as Court's witnesses. The judge exercised his discretion properly, respecting the Defendant's clearly stated belief that the testimony would not only be embarrassing to him and his family but also potentially damaging to his case. It is also important to note that the defense raised no objection to Judge Whitfill's decision not to call the witnesses, nor did the Defendant's attorneys indicate any disagreement with the Defendant's statement that the testimony might be damaging. To adopt Baker's argument would place future sentencing judges in an untenable dilemma. Either risk reversal by not calling witnesses where there is a suggestion that the testimony might prove damaging or, alternatively, risk reversal by calling such witnesses if the testimony does, in fact, prove damaging. In addition, criminal defendants facing the death penalty would be able to partially shift the burden to the court to call potentially mitigating witnesses. Baker also claims that the sentencing judge's failure to call these witnesses constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, because he failed to make an individualized determination that death was the appropriate penalty. Baker ignores the fact that Judge Whitfill did make an individualized determination regarding Baker's sentence, considering testimony offered on Baker's behalf by the Chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission and an expert in criminal justice and prison adjustment. Therefore, we find Baker's constitutional argument without merit. The State also suggested that because Judge Whitfill heard the testimony of Lori James at a subsequent hearing on a motion for modification of the sentence, held on May 10, 1993, this rendered his original decision harmless error. [5] Because we find no error in Judge Whitfill's original decision not to call Ms. James and Ms. Williams, we need not reach the harmless error issue.