Court Opinion

ID: 9884278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:50:54.873309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:37.195608
License: Public Domain

ROBERT M. BELL, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. No objection was interposed to the premature verdict and, therefore, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. Spence v. State, 296 Md. 416, 463 A.2d 808 (1983) did not prescribe an absolute rule requiring reversal where the trial judge in a non-jury trial renders a premature verdict. Consequently, our interpretation in Jones v. State, 55 Md.App. 695, 466 A.2d 55 (1983) went too far.
Although I concur, I am concerned that the alternatives we set out, not being necessary to the decision we announce today, will be read as being exclusive. In my experience, there is a tendency to view the examples as exclusive. As such, the danger exists that this decision will be read as not admitting of the possibility that other equally viable alternatives, which we do not and, indeed, could not anticipate, may exist or may be presented in the future. Thus, I would caution and emphasize that we do not today prescribe exclusive alternatives, only examples of possible alternatives.