Court Opinion

ID: 9760864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:20:24.146154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:15.887469
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C. J.,

dissenting:

The Court today fashions a per se rule which requires a new trial whenever the trial judge announces a verdict before the defendant has either made or waived closing argument. In so doing, the majority creates a flat and absolute rule of constitutional dimension which is not recognized in any other jurisdiction. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
The trial in this case was before the court, sitting without a jury. At the conclusion of the State’s case, Spence moved for a judgment of acquittal and argued in favor of the motion at some length. After the motion was denied, the defense presented its case. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the following colloquy ensued:
"MR. FRIEDMAN [defense counsel]: I will renew our motion for judgment of acquittal, Your Honor, as to both informations and all counts.
THE COURT: Do you want to be heard, Mr. Friedman?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, Your Honor, I’d submit the same argument as to the motion that I gave before.
*427THE COURT: Mr. Crowe, do you want to be heard?
MR. CROWE: The State will submit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, I need some time to consider this matter, frankly....
THE COURT: I’ve got to recess at this point. I’ve got to get to Annapolis and I want to take — I want to review my notes and consider some of the legal questions raised by Mr. Friedman, in any event. So we’ll continue this until tomorrow morning.”
The next morning, the trial judge continued the proceedings. He stated:
"... the posture of the case is that testimony was finished and that motions for judgment of acquittal were renewed. I’ve had the opportunity to review my notes again and to look at some law over night. First of all let me say what I propose to do and then I’ll explain why.
With respect to 0501, the robbery indictment,. .. I do deny the motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts one and three, one being the robbery count, three being the simple assault, common law assault count, and I grant the motions for judgment of acquittal as to counts two, four and five. With respect to 0502, the burglary, etc., indictment, I deny the motion for judgment of acquittal as to count one and count four and grant the motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts two and three.
Now, let me go back to 0501, the first count, the robbery count, it is charged that the Defendant on June 14, 1980, in Baltimore City at 5422 Relcrest Road did rob the complainant, Dennis McCausland, and violently did steal from him certain property which is described in the exhibit attached to the *428indictment, one .38-caliber Smith and Wesson blue revolver, the value of less than three hundred dollars ($300) current money. I don’t recall what value Mr. McCausland testified to but the value was not a matter of consequence, in any event, in the robbery. But, of course, the robbery is the unlawful taking and carrying away of the goods, property or money of another from the victim’s person or immediate presence by force or putting in fear. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of robbery have been proved in this case, that is, that there was a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another. First of all, the hair dryer and the electric razor and also the gun and I find the complaining witnesses’ testimony to be credible in that respect. I do believe that the Defendant did pick up certain items in the premises, place them in this bag that he had with him and did take the gun belonging to Mr. McCausland, that he did not get the hair dryer and the electric razor off the premises, not by any design but because he was thwarted in his efforts by the victim, Mr. McCausland, who reached for the gun and tried to stop him.”
The trial judge thereafter rendered verdicts on all remaining counts, a process which occupies over six double-spaced pages in the transcript. Another two pages record a discussion about a pre-sentence investigation report and continuation of bail. At this point, Spence’s counsel addressed the court:
"I appreciate Your Honor calling upon me at this stage of the proceedings. I want the record to reflect something. When we adjourned yesterday I had moved for judgments of acquittal. I renewed my motions and told Your Honor when Your Honor asked me that I submitted as to the same argument on the motions that I had rendered at the conclusion of the trial as to the original motions for judgment *429of acquittal, I didn’t reargue the motion for judgment of acquittal. I might say this, I came to court this morning prepared to argue concerning the verdict.
THE COURT: Concerning what?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Concerning the verdicts. Now, I have never been granted the opportunity. Your Honor started to rule on the motions and continued on into the verdicts and I know that when I interrupt Your Honor, Your Honor doesn’t care for that. I can understand that. I have never been given the opportunity to argue the verdicts in this case and I would ask the court to strike out these verdicts because otherwise I’m intending to file a motion for a new trial on that ground. I have never been called upon to argue those verdicts.
THE COURT: I’m sorry.
MR. FRIEDMAN: I had quite a bit that I had prepared to discuss this morning and there are quite a few items that I think Your Honor has not touched upon that deserve consideration.
THE COURT: I understood yesterday that you were simply submitting on the whole issue.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No. Your Honor, if you read the record —
THE COURT: The verdicts are —
MR. FRIEDMAN: — you will find that’s a mistake.
THE COURT: The verdicts are stricken, Mr. Friedman. I’ll be glad to hear from you.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Sir?
THE COURT: The verdicts are stricken, I’ll hear from you.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, Your Honor, you have already rendered verdicts. I don’t know how I can now get you to change those verdicts. I would ask —
*430THE COURT: Mr. Friedman —
MR: FRIEDMAN: — for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Do you want me to strike them or not?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I’ll formally move for mistrial at this time.
THE COURT: I’ll strike the verdicts. I’ll be glad to hear from you, sir.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, Your Honor, I don’t feel that if I argue the case at this time that I could possibly convince Your Honor contrary to what you have already explained. I don’t see how that is possible. That’s like saying go back to the jury and argue your case now after they have rendered verdicts of guilty.
THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, I’m not a jury and I note that I can be persuaded by argument and that I’m — if I am persuaded, it wouldn’t be the first time because I’ve ruled against a previously taken position that I’ve had on other occasions. I strike the verdicts and deny the motion for mistrial and I’ll be glad to hear whatever you have to say, sir.
MR. FRIEDMAN: If Your Honor please, I will first move for a mistrial at this time for the reason that I have not been afforded the opportunity to argue the- verdicts prior to the entry of verdicts by this honorable court.
THE COURT: That motion is denied.
MR. FRIEDMAN: All right, sir. If that motion is denied, I wish to advise the court that I intend to file a motion for new trial on that ground.
Now, if the court insists that I argue —
THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, the matter is not ripe for a motion for new trial yet because the verdicts are stricken. Now, if you want to argue, fine. If you don’t want to argue, that’s up to you.
*431MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, if Your Honor please, I don’t feel that argument is in order at this time after what the court has said concerning the verdicts but if the court insists on not granting my motion for mistrial, then I’ll argue and I feel before I start that it’s a waste of time. I don’t know how else to put it.
THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, I’m not going to tell you what you should do or shouldn’t do. If you want to argue, I’ll be glad to hear it and I’ll be glad to listen carefully to what you have to say.
MR. FRIEDMAN: All right.
THE COURT: If you don’t want to argue, then you may very well forfeit your right to argue.
MR. FRIEDMAN: If Your Honor please, since I’m compelled to do so and I can’t let my client down, I will argue the case.”
Spence’s counsel then proceeded to argue at length, during which the court questioned him on particular issues. At the end, the court noted:
"THE COURT: Let me say, Mr. Friedman, I’ve listened to your argument and I don’t think there is any element of the offense or aspect of the testimony that I did not consider when I made my earlier comments.”
After discussing several issues raised in closing argument by Spence, the court concluded:
"So, having considered your arguments, Mr. Friedman, I adopt by reference all of my previous comments and findings and now make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that all the essential elements have been proved and the Defendant is therefore guilty ... .”
From this lengthy discourse, several features emerge. First, although the trial juge mistakenly assumed that *432Spence had concluded his case and had waived further closing argument, the error was clearly inadvertent. When the error was belatedly brought to the judge’s attention, he struck the verdicts. Not satisfied, Spence moved for a mistrial, which was denied. It is evident from the transcript that the trial judge afforded Spence a meaningful opportunity to argue his case. That Spence was not ultimately successful with his argument does not mean that his effort was futile ab initio. Indeed, in his unsuccessful argument in support of his initial motion for acquittal, Spence raised the same points that he presented in his later closing argument.
I fully agree with the Court that the right of a state criminal defendant to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions; and that one component of that right is that counsel be afforded an opportunity to argue the merits of the case before a verdict is rendered. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 95 S. Ct. 2550, 45 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1975). Indeed, Maryland was one of the first jurisdictions to recognize the importance of the right in a court trial. Yopps v. State, 228 Md. 204, 178 A.2d 879 (1962). In Yopps, as we later pointed out in Covington v. State, 282 Md. 540, 386 A.2d 336 (1978), the defendant who was offended by the failure of the trial judge to permit closing argument on his behalf immediately protested. No such protest was raised in Covington and the claim of reversible error on appeal was denied.
Unlike the present case, the cases relied upon by the majority concerning violation of a defendant’s right to closing argument involve an affirmative and intentional denial of any effective opportunity to argue. In United States v. King, 650 F.2d 534 (4th Cir. 1981), the trial judge, after rendering a verdict, gave defense counsel a chance to make closing argument in the following manner:
" 'THE COURT: Go ahead if you want to argue it. I have already made my finding. It’s not going to change anything, Mr. Shapiro.
*433If you want to argue the case for the record, for the appeals, that’s fine as far as I’m concerned. But this case has gone on. I have given you at least fifteen minutes to confer with your own clients in the courtroom here.
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And we have other people waiting here on drug charges and we have a number of cases that have to get on this afternoon.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, certainly, I would have preferred to argue, but if it’s not going to change the Court’s mind, I don’t see any reason, at this point, to do it.
THE COURT: It’s not, based on the defendant’s own statement.’ ”
Id. at 536.
In finding a violation of the defendant’s right to counsel, and that the right had not been waived after the verdict was rendered, the court’s rationale is enlightening:
"Technically, the magistrate did offer counsel the opportunity to exercise this right; however the magistrate unequivocably stated that a closing argument would not change his mind. This is not the kind of environment in which a defendant’s interests can be effectively advocated. Because of the absence of any real opportunity to proceed with closing argument, we find the appellant did not waive this right. United States v. Walls, 443 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1971).” Id. at 536-37.
United States v. Walls, 443 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1971), is factually similar to King. In that case, the judge rendered a verdict and adjourned immediately after both sides concluded. After defense counsel noted the omission of closing argument, the record was reopened, but the judge stated that argument then would be futile, because he had already made up his mind. Id. at 1223. In United States v. *434Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 273 F. Supp. 923 (E.D. Pa. 1967), the trial judge cut off defense counsel’s opening sentence of argument to announce the verdict, and thereafter prevented any meaningful comments. Id. at 924. In People v. Diaz, 1 Ill. App. 3d 988, 275 N.E.2d 210 (1971), the trial judge interrupted the proceedings three times to announce a guilty verdict before the defense had concluded its case. See also Thomas v. District of Columbia, 90 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1937); Floyd v. State, 90 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1956); Commonwealth v. Richman, 132 Pa. Super. 529, 1 A.2d 578 (1938). In Commonwealth v. McNair, 208 Pa. Super. 369, 222 A.2d 599 (1966), defense counsel requested and was refused the right of summation at the conclusion of the evidence. In response to the State’s assertion that argument on post-trial motions was equivalent to a closing argument, the appellate court noted,
"We cannot reasonably conclude that an argument made after a decision has been made is always as effective as it might have been if made before such time.” Id. at 371, 222 A.2d at 600.
Most of the courts which have found a denial of the right to closing argument have done so where the defense requested and was explicitly refused an opportunity for summation. See, e.g., Grigsby v. State, 333 So.2d 891 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 894 (Ala. 1976); In re F., 11 Cal.3d 249, 113 Cal. Rptr. 170, 520 P.2d 986 (1974); State v. Moorcraft, 319 So.2d 386 (La. 1975); State v. Hollingsworth, 160 La. 26, 106 So. 662 (1925); People v. Thomas, 390 Mich. 93, 210 N.W.2d 776 (1973); Decker v. State, 113 Ohio St. 512, 150 N.E. 74 (1925); Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Walker v. State, 133 Tex. Crim. 300, 110 S.W.2d 578 (1937); Ferguson v. State, 133 Tex. Crim. 250, 110 S.W.2d 61 (1937); Anselin v. State, 72 Tex. Crim. 17, 160 S.W. 713 (1913). Cf. People v. Manske, 399 Ill. 176, 77 N.E.2d 164 (1948) (refusal to hear closing argument not reversible error where such argument would not be helpful).
*435The only case that squarely states, at least in dicta, that announcing a verdict before closing argument is either made or waived is a per se violation of the right to counsel, requiring reversal, is People v. Dougherty, 162 Cal. Rptr. 277 (1980).1 That case was ordered deleted from the California Appellate Reports, see 102 Cal. App. 3d 270, on direction of the California Supreme Court by order dated August 14, 1981, and thus its status as valid law is at best clouded. Dougherty has been criticized by other California appellate panels, and has not been followed, In re Michael W., 175 Cal. Rptr. 886 (1981) (juvenile proceedings);2 People v. Manning, 120 Cal. App. 3d 421, 174 Cal. Rptr. 625 (1981). In short, no state’s highest court has gone as far as the majority does here.
Maryland case law does not counsel the result reached by the majority. In Yopps v. State, 228 Md. 204, 178 A.2d 879 (1962), the trial judge, over timely objection, refused to permit closing argument, commenting that it wouldn’t change his mind. In Rome and Modo v. State, 236 Md. 583, 204 A.2d 674 (1964), "the court inadvertently announced the verdict before counsel had finally ascertained whether the defendants desired to testify.” 236 Md. at 586. The premature verdicts apparently were then stricken. The court concluded that "the untimely announcement of the verdict was not prejudicial,” id. at 587, and that since no request was made for closing argument, in light of the earlier opportunity to argue motions for acquittal, "the reinstatement of the verdicts of guilty ... was not prejudicial....” Id. at 588. In Moore a/k/a Smith v. State, 7 Md. App. 330, 254 A.2d 717 (1969), the Court of Special Appeals found no waiver of the right to closing argument from the absence of a specific request, but did not address the question of whether, in the face of such a request, the trial court could remedy the omission. The Court of Special Appeals found a denial of such a *436specific request in Baines v. State, 37 Md. App. 505, 378 A.2d 177 (1977). This Court overruled Moore in Covington v. State, 282 Md. 540, 386 A.2d 336 (1978), holding that denial of the right to closing argument is not preserved for appeal unless a timely objection is made at trial. In dissent, Judge Eldridge argued that, in contrast to the implication in Covington that post-verdict argument might satisfy the right, any argument given after a verdict is rendered would not satisfy the right to closing argument. Until today, such has not been Maryland law.
Implicit in Covington is the proposition that there must be a timely objection to a denial of the right to closing argument. Indeed, the Court there observed, id. at 543, that "it is incumbent upon a litigant to make known to the court an objection to the action of the court at the earliest practicable opportunity.” Even errors of constitutional dimension may be waived by failure to interpose a timely objection at trial. See, e.g., Hewitt v. State, 242 Md. 111, 218 A.2d 19 (1966). The principle involved is that such procedural errors are not reviewable unless the trial court is first given the opportunity to correct an inadvertent oversight. If the defendant neglects to object at all, or if he withholds his objection until the error is no longer correctable, he cannot assert the error on appeal. Here, Spence’s counsel waited until the very end of an extended series of findings by the trial court before objecting. The belated objection, quite simply, was untimely under Covington.
In a case factually similar to Covington, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also held that the denial of closing argument was not preserved for appeal absent a timely objection. United States ex rel. Spears v. Johnson, 463 F.2d 1024 (3d Cir. 1972), rev’g 327 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D. Pa. 1971). In noting that the defendant and his counsel had failed to object at the trial, apparently for tactical reasons, the court commented:
"[W]e believe that it was incumbent upon them under these circumstances to make a timely objection to the trial judge’s alleged refusal to permit a *437closing summation, in which case the defect could have been remedied without substantial prejudice to either Spears or the Commonwealth.” Id. at 1026.
See West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968) (no error where no request or timely objection); People v. Berger, 284 Ill. 47, 119 N.E. 975 (1918) (no error where counsel delayed request until after verdict announced).
Underlying the majority’s decision is the assumption that a trial judge, once having prematurely rendered a verdict, is unable to fairly consider further argument in the case. Certainly there are factual settings where either the judge’s own words or actions at trial indicate a strong prejudicial bias, as typified in the cited cases. However, the present case indicates an inadvertent rather than an intentional denial, and there was a good-faith effort by the trial judge to correct the procedural deficiency. To say, as the majority does, that the trial judge cannot strike the premature verdict and consider the defendant’s closing arguments flies in the face of our reasoning in State v. Hutchinson, 260 Md. 227, 271 A.2d 641 (1970). In that case, the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, admitted a confession taken in violation of Miranda guidelines. Subsequently, he realized his mistake and excluded the confession, declaring that he would completely disregard it in reaching his verdict. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction, 9 Md. App. 41, 262 A.2d 321, on the ground that knowledge by the judge of the confession deprived the defendant of a fair trial. In reversing, we said:
"This assumption of the [Court of Special Appeals] might be valid were we to first, not believe the trial judge’s statement that he was disregarding and eliminating from his deliberations the substance of the inadmissible confession, and secondly, choose to ignore the professional expertise, experience, and judicial temperament with which our legal system has inherently invested a trial judge vis a vis a jury comprised of laymen. It is true that *438judges, being flesh and blood, are subject to the same emotions and human frailties as affect other members of the specie; however, by his legal training, traditional approach to problems, and the very state of the art of his profession, he must early learn to perceive, distinguish and interpret the nuances of the law which are its 'warp and woof.’ ” Id. at 233.
Today, the Court prescribes an inflexible and absolute rule that, notwithstanding the lack of timely objection, where a trial judge in a nonjury case inadvertently renders a premature verdict, which is later stricken, he is thereafter incapable, in any and all circumstances, of fairly considering closing argument. I simply am unable to prescribe to such an unwise rule.
I am authorized to state that Judges Smith and Rodowsky join in this dissent.

. There was no request for argument in Dougherty at any point. Thus, the court’s comments were directed to a factual situation that was not presented in the case.

. See 122 Cal. App. 3d 349 (deleted on direction of Supreme Court by order dated October 28, 1981).