Court Opinion

ID: 9651047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:03:46.225785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:29.399132
License: Public Domain

Dissent by
HARRELL, J.,
joined by RAKER and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
I am unable to accept, on the record of this case, the reasoning embodied in the Majority opinion or its result. The Majority condemns the procedure utilized in Appellant’s trial, yet that procedure was put in place largely at Appellant’s request and with his acquiescence. Appellant should have foreseen, in urging the trial judge to structure the trial and return of verdicts as was done, the real possibility of the disparate outcomes. Moreover, the Majority’s concern for an impingement on Appellant’s right to a jury trial gives little real weight to the fact that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial as to the counts for which the court convicted him. For the reasons that follow, I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
I.
The Majority rejects the proposition that the trial judge had the discretion to grant the admittedly non-traditional simultaneous-trial procedure used in the instant case. The Majority opinion severely and unduly undercuts the well-established principle that the decision to join or sever charges ordinarily *423lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, See Frazier v. State, 318 Md., 597, 607, 569 A.2d 684, 689 (1990); Grandi-son v. State, 305 Md. 685, 705, 506 A.2d 580, 589 (1986); But see McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 612, 375 A.2d 551, 556 (1977) (mandating severance where a defendant charged with similar but unrelated offenses establishes that “the evidence as to each individual offense would not be mutually admissible at separate trials”).
In the present case, the trial judge was aware of the potential for spill-over prejudice on counts 1 through 7 from the admission of Appellant’s prior criminal record on the criminal-in-possession charges (counts 8 and 9). This concern was particularly acute here due to the similar nature of the crimes charged in the indictment with the predicate prior offense underlying count 8, i.e., battery. The simultaneous-trial proceeding erected, in essence, an “informational wall” between the judge and jury on the argument and prejudicial evidence presented on the criminal-in-possession charges. This procedure effectively precluded any possibility that the jury’s verdict on counts 1 through 7 could be tainted by the necessary admission of Appellant’s prior criminal record as to counts 8 and 9, while still allowing the State the opportunity to present its entire case without the duplicative presentation of evidence that would occur as a result of conducting consecutive trials.
As acknowledged by the Majority (Maj. op. at 394-95), Maryland Rule 4-258(c) expressly vests in a trial judge the discretion to sever counts in a multi-count indictment to avoid prejudicial joinder. The trial procedure utilized here was commensurate with the court’s power to sever and within its authority to “grant any other relief as justice requires.” Assuming a defendant properly waives his or her right to a jury trial on the counts adjudicated by the court, see Md. Rule 4-246(b),1 I would hold that implementation of the simultaneous-trial procedure, although not traditional, strikes an ap*424propriate balance between the twin concerns of prejudicial joinder and judicial economy, and is within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant. In explaining my reasoning, I shall address both of Galloway’s questions as raised in his brief.
II.
It is well settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution2 “prohibits successive prosecutions as well as cumulative punishment” for the same offense. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). See Farrell v. State, 364 Md. 499, 504, 774 A.2d 387, 390 (2001). This constitutional guarantee is applicable to this State through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2058, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), and is rooted in Maryland common law.3 Maryland’s courts often draw on the cases of the Supreme Court for guidance in developing our double jeopardy jurisprudence and, for this reason, our common law is generally harmonious with constitutional interpretations of the federal provision.4
The double jeopardy prohibition provides a criminal defendant three basic protections. It protects against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal (common law plea of autrefois acquit)-, (2) a second prosecution for the *425same offense after conviction (common law plea of autrefois convict); and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. See State v. Griffiths, 338 Md. 485, 494, 659 A.2d 876, 881 (1995) (quoting Brown, 432 U.S. at 165, 97 S.Ct. at 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (citation omitted)); Huff v. State, 325 Md. 55, 74, 599 A.2d 428, 437 (1991) (citing Gianiny v. State, 320 Md. 337, 347, 577 A.2d 795, 799-800 (1990)).
Indispensable to a proper understanding of double jeopardy law is an appreciation of the policy considerations that mandate its enforcement. It has been stated on many occasions that the double jeopardy prohibition is premised on “the belief that ‘the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting [a defendant] to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him for her] to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent [a defendant] may still be found guilty.’ ” United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 606, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1079, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976) (quoting Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957)). The same sentiment was expressed by this Court in Mason v. State, 302 Md. 434, 438, 488 A.2d 955, 957 (1985) (quoting Parks v. State, 287 Md. 11, 14, 410 A.2d 597, 600 (1980) (discussing the rationale associated with double jeopardy)). Discussing the policy considerations supporting the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Supreme Court in Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982), explained:
[The] Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. This prohibition, lying at the core of the Clause’s protections, prevents the State from honing its trial strategies and perfecting its evidence through successive attempts at conviction. Repeated prosecutorial sallies would unfairly burden the defendant and create a risk of conviction through sheer governmental perseverance.
*426Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 41-42, 102 S.Ct. at 2218, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted). See Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 325, 765 A.2d 97, 124 (2001). To this end, the Double Jeopardy Clause “guards against Government oppression.” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 99, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2198, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978).
Relying on this Court’s decision in Wright v. State, 307 Md. 552, 515 A.2d 1157 (1986), Appellant’s first contention is that the finality of the jury acquittal on the charge of carrying a handgun (count 7) precluded further proceedings by the trial court on the “same offense” of possessing a firearm (counts 8 and 9). Raising the shield of autrefois acquit, Appellant argues that the trial court’s decision ignored the one absolute rule of double jeopardy analysis: “[tjhere [are] no exception^] permitting retrial once the defendant has been acquitted, no matter how egregiously erroneous.” (Quoting Sanatoria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 75, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2184, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (citation omitted)).
The State, of course, does not take issue with the basic principles of finality discussed and applied in Wright. It concedes that “the status accorded to an acquittal on criminal charges is a fundamental one and quite unforgiving of mistakes, errors, or irregularities.” Nevertheless, the State contends the doctrine of autrefois acquit does not apply here because the simultaneous court and jury trial procedure was the result of Appellant’s deliberate choice. Consequently, the State argues, the policy considerations supporting a double jeopardy claim — to prevent government oppression — are not implicated here. I agree. Appellant’s instrumental role in fashioning the trial process, and the absence of the type of “evils” the Double Jeopardy Clause is designed to prevent, removed any constitutional or common law barrier under double jeopardy principles to the trial court’s decision in this regard.
The State relies on two closely analogous double jeopardy cases in support of its contention. See Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977), and *427Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984). The facts in Jeffers may be summarized briefly. Jeffers was charged in two separate indictments with conspiracy to distribute narcotics and conducting a continuing-criminal-enterprise to violate the drug laws. Shortly after the indictments were returned, the Government filed a motion to consolidate the charges. Jeffers successfully opposed the Government’s motion, and thereafter was tried and convicted on the conspiracy charge. Jeffers then moved to dismiss the remaining charge on “double jeopardy” grounds, claiming that he had already been placed in jeopardy for the “same offense,” in that the conspiracy charge was a lesser included offense of the continuing-criminal-enterprise charge. Jeffers’s motion was denied and he was subsequently tried and convicted on the second charge as well.
In a plurality opinion, the Jeffers Court found the case to be an exception to the general rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a State or the federal government “from trying a defendant for a greater offense after it has convicted him of lesser included offense,” which general rule had been announced that same day in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2227, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). Jeffers, 432 U.S. at 150, 97 S.Ct. at 2216, 53 L.Ed.2d 168. Finding Jeffers “solely responsible” for the successive prosecutions on the conspiracy charge and the continuing-criminal-enterprise charge, the Court held that his action “deprived him of any right that he might have had against consecutive trials.”
Similarly, in Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984), the Court concluded that Brown’s rule against successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses did not apply where a defendant has entered, over the State’s objection, guilty pleas to lesser included offenses while charges of greater offenses remained pending under a multi-count indictment brought in a single prosecution. Calling this an even clearer case than Jeffers, the Court underscored the absence of “governmental overreaching” in a single prosecution, observing that this was not a case where the State had “the opportunity to marshal its evidence and re*428sources more than once or to hone its presentation of its case through a trial.” Johnson, 467 U.S. at 501, 104 S.Ct. at 2542, 81 L.Ed.2d 425. The Court concluded that under the circumstances, the defendant “should not be entitled to use the Double Jeopardy Clause as a sword to prevent the State from completing its prosecution on the remaining charges.” Johnson, 467 U.S. at 502, 104 S.Ct. at 2542, 81 L.Ed.2d 425.
III.
In the present case, Appellant was indicted on nine related charges in a single indictment stemming from the same incident. At the time Appellant filed his motion for severance of counts 8 and 9, there was nothing to prevent the State from prosecuting Appellant for multiple offenses, including lesser included offenses, in one trial proceeding. See Johnson, 467 U.S. at 501, 104 S.Ct. at 2541-42, 81 L.Ed.2d 425; Jeffers, 432 U.S. at 153, 97 S.Ct. at 2217-18, 53 L.Ed.2d 168; Frazier, 318 Md. at 607, 569 A.2d at 689. Moreover, it appears that Appellant may have been entitled to a limiting jury instruction, minimizing the prejudicial effect of his prior convictions. Appellant, however, deliberately chose not to pursue this course of action, but rather opted to pursue the separate, but simultaneous, court and jury trials that ensued.
Responding to the State’s objection to severance and suggestion that Appellant instead request a limiting jury instruction, Appellant’s counsel replied:
[Galloway] advises he’d be willing to waive his right to a jury trial on Counts 8 and 9.
In response, the State asked the court’s permission to confer with Appellant’s counsel, after which the State said:
Your Honor, if the — if counsel and the defendant are willing to waive their right to a jury trial on the last two counts and proceed before the [c]ourt on those, the State will not object to severing those two counts from the indictment.
Thereupon, Appellant’s counsel qualified Appellant on his knowing partial waiver of his right to a jury trial and the manner in which the trial would proceed:
*429[Galloway’s counsel:] Mr. Galloway, you understand that we are going to have a jury trial in the first seven counts of your case? It’s going to be 12 people selected at ran-dom____Those 12 people will hear your case, and all 12 of them ... must agree that the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt before you can be convicted. Do you understand that?
[Galloway]: Yes.
[Galloway’s counsel:] We are going to have a jury trial with respect to Counts 1 through 7. Counts 8 and 9, however, it’s my understanding you’re willing to give up your right to a jury trial and let [the trial judge] decide your guilt or innocence. Again, [the trial judge] would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt before you could be convicted of those two counts, but it would be just her making that decision and not 12 citizens. Are you willing to give up your right to a jury trial as to those last two counts?
[Galloway:] Yes.
(Emphasis added). Shortly thereafter, and before the jury was sworn, the State proffered in greater detail the manner in which it anticipated the trial would proceed, and Appellant concurred with that recitation. See Maj. op. at 389-90, n. 9.
I think it clear that the principles enunciated in Jeffers and Johnson are applicable on the record before us. Appellant’s deliberate and calculated election to sever counts 8 and 9 from the indictment and to engage in the simultaneous court and jury trial proceeding were clearly trial tactics. In a hearing on Appellant’s motion for a new trial on 27 June 2001, Appellant’s counsel discussed his motivation in making the request. Asked by the court to distinguish the case at bar from the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, Appellant’s counsel responded:
[In Johnson ] ... I think there was a great degree of finagling by Defense counsel to get the plea to the lesser included offense heard first in order to set the case up to *430make it [a] double jeopardy standard. Now I will admit to a certain amount of finagling on my own part in this case. I did move to sever the charges. I asked the [cjourt to hear and decide the counts eight and nine, but the reason for that Your Honor, was not so that I could raise the shield of double jeopardy at a later date. The reason for that was that I did not want the jury to hear that my client had a misdemeanor conviction.
After further discussion, Appellant’s counsel reiterated his prior remarks:
Now as far as Defense finagling or anything of that nature, the only purpose of that was to keep the evidence, the misdemeanor convictions away from the jury. Now Your Honor, I’m well aware of the case that [the State] cites that it would not have been an abuse of this [c]ourt’s discretion to require all the charges to have gone to the jury and denied the motion to sever. Frasier [sic] says it was within the [c]ourt’s discretion to sever and the [c]ourt did sever so I think we’re past that.
Appellant engaged in similar tactics in urging the court to defer its verdict until after the jury had rendered its verdict. During Appellant’s argument on his motion for a new trial, the court questioned the “fortuity” of the sequence in which the verdicts were rendered. Noting that it had deferred its verdict at Appellant’s request,5 the court questioned whether the jury would have been bound by the court’s factual finding had the court disregarded Appellant’s request and rendered its verdict first. Avoiding a direct response, Appellant’s coun*431sel explained that “[his] strategy in this case” was that “the-[c]ourt would follow the jury’s verdict.”
While it is entirely within the Appellant’s right to attempt to influence the trial process in a manner that best serves his interests, nonetheless, Appellant cannot reap the intended benefits of his efforts,6 but avoid their attendant burdens and foreseeable consequences. Appellant was entitled to have all of the charges against him resolved in one proceeding. Assuming, arguendo, that the criminal-in-possession counts were the “same offense” as any of the first seven counts of the indictment,7 like the defendant in Jeffers, it was Appellant’s own action that resulted in the functional equivalent of two separate trials.8 Moreover, Appellant had a complete appreci*432•ation for the manner in which the trial was to be conducted, first by his counsel’s description to him during the jury trial waiver colloquy, and later in the State’s detailed explanation of the anticipated procedure. This procedure necessarily contemplated the possibility that two independent fact-finders might reach conflicting verdicts. Legal consequences flow from such tactical decisions. When a defendant voluntarily elects to proceed in a particular course of action, he or she must accept the foreseeable consequences of those elections.
Of equal import in my consideration of this matter is the absence of State oppression which the double jeopardy prohibition is intended to prevent. Double jeopardy principles ordinarily are implicated in a sequential setting. Here, the court and jury trials were heard simultaneously, not successively, with evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions heard by the court alone. The State did not institute an entirely new prosecution for the same offense following an acquittal or conviction of Appellant. Accordingly, none of the “hazards of trial, embarrassment and anxiety” attendant in successive prosecutions are present. Parks, 287 Md. at 14, 410 A.2d at 600. In this regard, this case more closely resembles the single prosecution of Johnson than the successive prosecutions found in Jeffers. This is not the example of an all-powerful State determined to convict a defendant through “sheer governmental perseverance.” See supra pages 427-428. As did the Court in Johnson, I find “there simply has been none of the governmental overreaching that double jeopardy is supposed to prevent.” Johnson, 467 U.S. at 502, 104 S.Ct. at 2542.9
*433The foregoing analysis is consistent also with prior decisions that have refused to apply a double jeopardy bar to a subsequent prosecution where initial jeopardy terminated for reasons other than evidentiary insufficiency. Thus, for example, retrial following a defendant’s successful appeal of a conviction for trial error is not barred under double jeopardy principles. See United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 465, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964); United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1195, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896) (“[A] defendant, who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside, may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted.”) (citations omitted). But see Burks, 437 U.S. at 11, 98 S.Ct. at 2147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (announcing the narrow exception barring retrial when a verdict is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence). While this well-established rule has been justified under various legal theories,10 it most commonly is premised on the following three *434grounds: (1) a defendant’s role in reversing the conviction, see North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 720-21, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2078, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (noting that this “well-established” rule rests on the “premise that the original conviction has, at the defendant’s behest, been wholly nullified and the slate *435wiped clean”); accord Harris v. State, 312 Md. 225, 240, 539 A.2d 637, 644 (1988) (applying the “clean slate” rationale of Pearce); Parks, 287 Md. at 19, 410 A.2d at 602 (explaining that “a defendant cannot by his own act avoid the jeopardy in which he stands and then assert it as a bar to a subsequent jeopardy.”); (2) policy considerations, see, e.g., Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 40, 102 S.Ct. at 2217, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (explaining that “retrial after reversal of a conviction is not the type of governmental oppression targeted by the Double Jeopardy Clause”); accord Scott, 437 U.S. at 91, 98 S.Ct. at 2194, 57 L.Ed.2d 65; and (3) on the basis of fairness in the administration of justice. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1022, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975) (citing Tateo, 377 U.S. at 465-66, 84 S.Ct. at 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448, for the proposition that “the practical justification ... is simply that it is fairer to both the defendant and the Government”); accord Parks, 287 Md. at 16, 410 A.2d at 601 (“Not only is the right of the defendant to an error-free trial protected but the societal interest that the guilty should be punished is preserved.”).
For similar reasons, a defendant’s voluntary request for a mistrial ordinarily will not bar re-prosecution under double jeopardy principles. See, e.g., Scott, 437 U.S. at 93, 98 S.Ct. at 2195, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (characterizing a defendant’s voluntary request for a mistrial as a “deliberate election on [a defendant’s] part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact”); Dinitz, 424 U.S. at 609, 96 S.Ct. at 1080, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (“The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of [judicial or prosecutorial] error.”). But see Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 679, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2091, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982) (recognizing the narrow exception that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes retrial of a defendant whose mistrial request is granted when “the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a *436mistrial”). See also Thanos v. State, 330 Md. 576, 587-88, 625 A.2d 932, 937 (1993) (“Ordinarily, of course, when a defendant requests a mistrial, he waives his ‘valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.’ ”) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689, 69 S.Ct. 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)); Bell v. State, 286 Md. 193, 202, 406 A.2d 909, 913 (1979). Likewise, re-prosecution is not barred when a defendant successfully moves for a mid-trial dismissal on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence. See, e.g., Scott, 437 U.S. at 99, 98 S.Ct. at 2198, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (concluding that “the Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant from the consequences of his voluntary choice.”); Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23, 31, 97 S.Ct. 2141, 2147, 53 L.Ed.2d 80 (1977) (observing that the “proceedings were terminated at the defendant’s request and with his consent,” the Court ultimately held that defendant’s successful dismissal did not offend double jeopardy principles).
The preceding cases are consistent with the rationale applied in Jeffers and Johnson.11 Moreover, the circumstances presented in the case at hand fit squarely within this line of double jeopardy jurisprudence. It is clear that Appellant (and not the State) exercised the primary advocacy in achieving severance of the inherently prejudicial charges from the first seven counts and the simultaneous court and jury trials that followed. Likewise, Appellant solicited the order in which the verdicts were rendered. See supra note 5. Consequently, no *437interests protected by double jeopardy principles were offended here. Furthermore, this reasoning is in accord with principles of fairness and the “sound administration of justice” embraced in Tateo, 377 U.S. at 465-66, 84 S.Ct. at 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448, and by this Court in Parks, 287 Md. at 16, 410 A.2d at 601. Just as the societal interest in punishing the guilty is preserved, so too is a defendant’s right to secure a fair trial protected. Trial courts would be reluctant, at the very least, to grant a defendant’s motion for severance on criminal-in-possession charges and to conduct simultaneous court and jury trials if to do so would give rise to double jeopardy implications. A decision that would allow for this possibility, in effect, would sound the death knell for a trial procedure that is manifestly in a defendant’s interest.
Accordingly, I would find the principles of finality applied in Wright inapplicable where a defendant freely elects to have two counts of a multi-count indictment severed and tried to the court, and elects to have the remaining counts tried to a jury in a simultaneous-trial proceeding. I conclude therefore, under the circumstances presented here, that Appellant was not deprived of the benefit of double jeopardy protections under either the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or, independently, under Maryland common law double jeopardy principles. Moreover, for the foregoing reasons, the doctrine of collateral estoppel embodied under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Maryland common law, does not apply in the instant case.
IV.
I turn now to Appellant’s other claims of trial error. Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court’s guilty verdicts on counts 8 and 9 are fatally flawed because they are impermissi-bly inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on all counts. Relying on Johnson v. State, 238 Md. 528, 209 A.2d 765 (1965), and related cases, Appellant contends that when the “source of the [inconsistent verdict] is the jury, the inconsistency is tolerable; when the source of the inconsistency is the judge, it is not.” It follows, Appellant argues, that *438“because the court created the inconsistency, its verdict must be vacated.”
The State disputes the applicability of Johnson and related cases in the case sub judice, in light of the fact that “the [trial court’s] two [guilty] verdicts were consistent with each other and were in no way governed by the outcome of the jury’s verdicts.” I agree. The general rules governing inconsistent verdicts in a criminal trial do not apply to inconsistencies between the verdicts of separate fact-finders rendered in separate, albeit simultaneous, court and jury trials conducted at a defendant’s request.
The rules governing inconsistent verdicts rendered by a trial judge in a non-jury trial were discussed by this Court in State v. Anderson, 320 Md. 17, 575 A.2d 1227 (1990):
It is ... settled in this State, as a nonconstitutional common law principle, that inconsistent verdicts of guilty and not guilty, by a trial judge at a nonjury trial, are not ordinarily permitted. The remedy is to reverse or vacate the judgment entered on the inconsistent guilty verdict. Where, however, there is apparent inconsistency in the verdicts at a nonjury trial, but where the trial judge on the record satisfactorily explains the apparent inconsistency, the guilty verdict may stand. If there is only an apparent inconsistency which in substance disappears upon review of the trial court’s explanation, the guilty verdict will not be vacated.
Anderson, 320 Md. at 29-30, 575 A.2d at 1233 (footnote omitted) (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted).12 See also Shell v. State, 307 Md. 46, 58, 512 A.2d 358, 364 (1986) (reversing the judgment on an inconsistent guilty verdict in a nonjury trial); Johnson, 238 Md. at 543, 209 A.2d at 772 *439(“ ‘[W]e reverse for inconsistency ... because we can have no confidence in a judgment convicting [the defendant] of one crime when the judge, by his acquittal of another, appears to have rejected the only evidence that would support the conviction here.’ ”) (quoting with approval United States v. Maybury, 274 F.2d 899, 905 (2nd Cir.1960)).
As the State correctly points out, the critical — and obvious — distinction between the cases Appellant and the Majority cite and the case now before us is the absence of an internal inconsistency in the trial court’s verdict. This is not a case that demands reversal because we have no “confidence” in the trial court’s judgment. Indeed, the court articulated the reasons for its verdict. Finding that Appellant had been convicted previously of the predicate offenses underlying counts 8 and 9, the court explained that the remaining “evi-dentiary issue is whether [Appellant] possessed a firearm on September 1, 1997.” The court found the testimony of the State’s chief witness, Robert Knox, to be credible. The court further noted that Mr. Knox’s testimony was corroborated by Appellant’s own witness, his mother, to the extent that “she heard shots that night and approximately ten to 12 seconds later she looked out her window and the [Appellant] was standing on the steps of her home.” Accordingly, the court found that Appellant “was in possession of [a] gun for purposes of Article 27 Section 445D [sic],” and entered a conviction on those counts. Clearly, the trial court is free to credit the testimony of the witnesses. See State v. Stanley, 351 Md. 733, 750, 720 A.2d 323, 331 (1998) (“Weighing the credibility of witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the evidence are tasks proper for the fact finder.”). See also Md. Rule 8-131(c) (stating that “[w]hen an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court ... will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credence of the witnesses.”).
Appellant does not provide, nor was I able to find, authority for the proposition that the trial court in the trial of a criminal matter is bound by a jury’s verdict in separate, but simulta*440neous, trial proceedings held at a defendant’s request.13 See *441supra note 8. Accordingly, I view Appellant’s contention in this regard as lacking merit. Moreover, for the reasons stated at supra pages 428-30, I find Appellant’s assertion that he did not agree to the “possibility of inconsistent verdicts” when he requested a bench trial on counts 8 and 9 likewise to be disingenuous.
Finally, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly shifted the State’s burden of proof when it credited Mr. Knox’s testimony based on the absence of any “evidence that the incident occurred in anyway other than that as testified to by Mr. Knox.” 14 Appellant argues that this statement indicates the court improperly focused on the “absence of other evidence,” and failed to evaluate adequately the credibility of Mr. Knox’s testimony. Appellant’s contention is without merit.
The trial judge, in her instructions to the jury, explained the following concerning the State’s burden of proof: *442Giving appropriate deference to the trial court’s decision and because an appellate court often presumes that the trial judge understands and properly applies the law, see Whittlesey v. State, 340 Md. 30, 48, 665 A.2d 223, 232 (1995), I would conclude that the trial judge applied that same standard to her deliberations.
*441The [Appellant] is presumed to be innocent of the charges. The presumption[ ] remains with the [Appellant] throughout every stage of trial and is not overcome unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] is guilty. The State has the burden of proving guilt of the [Appellant] beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden remains on the State throughout the trial. The [Appellant] is not required to prove his innocence.
*442I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Judges Raker and Battaglia authorize me to state that they join in the reasoning expressed in this Dissent.

. Maryland Rule 4-246(b) details the procedure for accepting a criminal defendant's waiver of his right to a trial by jury in a circuit court.

. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

. While there is "no express double jeopardy provision [in the Maryland Constitution], there is protection against it under Maryland common law.” See Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 708, 759 A.2d 764, 795 (2000); Bell v. State, 286 Md. 193, 201, 406 A.2d 909, 913 (1979) (discussing common law protection against double jeopardy).

. Appropriately describing this complex area of law, however, the Supreme Court has said "the decisional law in the [double jeopardy] area is a veritable Sargasso Sea which could not fail to challenge the most intrepid judicial navigator.” Albemaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 343, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1144, 67 L.Ed.2d275 (1981).

. In a footnote in the trial court’s memorandum, dated 27 July 2001, denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge explained the reason for delaying her verdict:
The court readily acquiesced to the defendant’s request that the jury’s verdict be taken before the court's to avoid any possibility that the jury would learn of, and be influenced by, the court’s verdict. If defense counsel believed at the time of his request that double jeopardy or collateral estoppel precluded the second fact-[finder] to announce its decision from being inconsistent with the first fact-finder to announce its decision, he did not share that view with the court any time before the filing of the motion for a new trial.

. In his reply brief, Appellant seems to dispute the chain of events that led to the trial procedure utilized in the instant case. Arguing the State "[r]e-work[ed] the procedural history” to support its argument that Appellant was responsible for the manner in which the trial was conducted, Appellant claims that while he moved for severance of the charges, he anticipated "completely separate judge and jury trials.” Appellant contends he merely acquiesced to the prosecutor’s proposal for the simultaneous court and jury trial procedure, as the prosecutor "conditioned his consent [for severance on counts 8 and 9] on the two trials proceeding simultaneously.” I believe the record supports the State's contention that Appellant prompted, and fully participated in, the decision to conduct the trial in the manner in which it was conducted.

. Appellant contends that under this Court's analysis in Frazier, "carrying a handgun [ (count 7) ] and possession of a handgun by a person with a prior conviction [ (counts 8 and 9) ] should be deemed the ‘same offense’ in accord with the ‘same evidence' test established in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).” For the reasons discussed above, I would not, and shall not, address this matter here.

. I do not exalt form over substance in my determination that the trial procedure employed in this case involved two separate, though simultaneous, trials before two independent fact-finders. It is clear from the record that the court severed counts 8 and 9 from the single indictment. Appellant originally moved for sevetance of the charges in his pretrial motions. During the course of the motions hearing, and after conferring with Appellant's counsel, the State advised the court that it would "not object to severing” counts 8 and 9 from the indictment if the defendant was willing to waive his right to a jury trial on the same counts, which Appellant subsequently waived. See supra pages 428-29. *432Moreover, the court noted in its 27 July 2001 memorandum that it had "severed” the two counts at defendant’s request, and that the “court and jury trials were heard simultaneously.” (Emphasis added).

. Appellant contends that this case can be distinguished from Jeffers and Johnson based on the fact that those cases involved prior convictions in the first prosecution, as opposed to the acquittal which occurred in the instant case. Appellant disregards, however, the extraordinary trial procedure that was employed in this case. The State did not pursue a course of seriatim prosecutions; rather it was separate, *433but simultaneous, trials that simply required one verdict to be announced before the other. Indeed, Appellant directly was responsible for the order in which the verdicts were rendered. See supra note 5. Accordingly, the distinction Appellant urges is inapposite where, as here, the defendant is responsible for the simultaneous court and jury trials, as well as the order in which the verdicts are rendered by the independent fact-finders.

. It has been stated on occasion that the general rule allowing retrial on a defendant's reversal of a conviction, first announced in United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), is grounded on a "waiver” theory, i.e., the defendant has waived his or her double jeopardy rights by successfully appealing his or her conviction. See Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 534, 26 S.Ct. 121, 124, 50 L.Ed. 292 (1905) (discussing ihe Ball doctrine, the Court explained that "by appealing, the accused waives the right to thereafter plead once in jeopardy”). The Ball doctrine has also been explained on the basis of a “continuing jeopardy” theory, a concept originally formulated by Justice Holmes in his dissent in Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 134-37, 24 S.Ct. 797, 806-07, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904) (Holmes, J„ dissenting) (explaining the Ball principle on the basis that "[t]he jeopardy is one continuing jeopardy from its beginning to the end of cause”). See Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 326, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 1759, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970) (noting with approval the continuing jeopardy rationale for the Ball doctrine).
*434Neither of these explanations, however, have been embraced without reservation. See, e.g., Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 191-92, 78 S.Ct. 221, 225-26, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (rejecting the doctrine of "waiver” as it applies to the policy of allowing retrials to correct trial error); United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358, 369, 95 S.Ct. 1006, 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975) (noting that the concept of "continuing jeopardy” articulated by Justice Holmes in his dissent in Kepner, "has never been adopted by a majority of [the United States Supreme] Court”); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 466, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964) (dismissing explanations for the Ball principle as "conceptual abstractions,” the Court instead chose to focus on the implications oí Ball "for the sound administration of justice”).
In a related context, the Supreme Court in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 609, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976), expressly rejected the waiver analysis as applied to a defendant's successful motion for a mistrial. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that "traditional waiver concepts have little relevance where the defendant must determine whether or not to request or consent to a mistrial in response to judicial or prosecutorial error.” Id. In a subsequent footnote, the Supreme Court further explained that the traditional standard of waiver of a constitutional right — knowing, intelligent, and voluntary — established in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), did not apply to the rule permitting retrials following a defendant’s voluntary mistrial or a reversal of a conviction on appeal. See Dinitz, 424 U.S. at 609 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. at 1080 n. 11, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (citing Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 534, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1788, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 343-44 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1022 n. 11, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 484 n. 11, 91 S.Ct. 547, 557 n. 11, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion); Tateo, 377 U.S. at 466, 84 S.Ct. at 1589, 12 L.Ed.2d 448).
The waiver theory, as it applied to a defendant’s successful motion for a mid-trial dismissal on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence, likewise was rejected by the Supreme Court in United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98-99, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2198, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). While concluding that a defendant "suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause" under such circumstances, the Supreme Court explained, however, that
[w]e do not thereby adopt the doctrine of "waiver” of double jeopardy rejected in Green [, 355 U.S. at 193-94, 78 S.Ct. at 226, 2 L.Ed.2d 199]. Rather, we conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant from the consequences of his voluntary choice.
*435Id. (footnote omitted).

. The Court’s holding in Jeffers, on occasion, has been characterized in dictum on the basis that Jeffers had "waived” his double jeopardy claim. See Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 303, 116 S.Ct. 1241, 1248-49, 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996) (discussing the rationale underlying the Jeffers decision, the Court noted that "the four-Justice plurality decided that Jeffers had waived any right to object to Jeffers’ prosecution for that conviction”); Sanabria, 437 U.S. 54, 76, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2185, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978); Hunt v. State, 95 Md.App. 471, 478-79, 622 A.2d 155, 159 (1993) (relying on Jeffers and Maryland common law to apply a waiver analysis to deny a defendant’s double jeopardy claim). But see United States v. Edmond, 288 U.S.App.D.C. 17, 924 F.2d 261, 269 (D.C.Cir.1991) (declining to apply a waiver analysis, the court noted that the Supreme Court in Johnson and Jeffers, "neither employed a waiver analysis nor mentioned the term”).

. Inconsistent verdicts in a jury trial, however, are tolerated. See Shell v. State, 307 Md. 46, 54, 512 A.2d 358, 362 (1986) ("The general view is that inconsistencies may be the product of lenity, mistake, or a compromise to reach unanimity, and that continual correction of such matters would undermine the historic role of the jury as the arbiter of questions put to it.”)

. Though not raised in Appellant’s brief, Appellant’s counsel seized upon a comment made in passing by a member of the Majority at oral argument concerning the authority of the trial court to render a verdict inconsistent with the jury’s resolution of common factual issues. See Maj. op. at 400-16. In this regard, an analogy was drawn between the simultaneous court and jury trials presented in the instant case, and the circumstances presented in a civil context where, due to the presence of both equitable and legal issues, a trial is conducted both to the jury and to the court in a single proceeding. As noted earlier, this has become the Majority’s raison d’etat. While it is true in the latter circumstance that a judge cannot award equitable relief inconsistent with a jury's verdict, see Edwards v. Gramling Eng'g Corp., 322 Md. 535, 543, 588 A.2d 793, 797 (1991) (citing with approval federal case law); Higgins v. Barnes, 310 Md. 532, 541-42, 530 A.2d 724, 728 (1987), these cases, and those discussed in the Majority opinion, are not controlling in a criminal context where a defendant has waived his right to a jury trial.
Since the 1984 merger of law and equity procedure in Maryland, parties may join legal and equitable claims in a single civil action. See Md. Rule 2-301 (abolishing the separation of law and equity, the rule provides that "[tjhere shall be one form of action known as 'civil action.’ "). See also Higgins, 310 Md. at 541, 530 A.2d at 728. In Higgins, this Court discussed the impact of the merger on a party’s right to a jury trial. Recognizing an individual’s historical right to a trial by jury, we noted that Article 23 of the Maryland Constitution Declaration of Rights provides in part:
The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.
Higgins, 310 Md. at 542, 530 A.2d at 728-29. While acknowledging that this provision predated the 1984 merger, nonetheless, we determined that "its guarantees remain as absolute under a merged system.” Higgins, 310 Md. at 542, 530 A.2d at 729.
This being determined, we discussed, inter alia, the issue of whether a judge's inconsistent relief rendered on an equitable claim might violate an individual’s jury right as to a companion legal claim. The implied concern was that the jury's factual findings on common issues could be set aside by the court, thereby circumventing an individual's constitutional right to a jury trial. To this end, we looked to analogous federal law for guidance, and quoted with approval the federal court conclusion that "the jury determination of any issue common to both legal and equitable claims should precede court consideration of the equitable issues." Higgins, 310 Md. at 542, 530 A.2d at 728 (citing Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 90 S.Ct. 733, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970); Dairy Queen v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959)). This view was subsequently confirmed in Gramling, 322 Md. at 543, 588 A.2d at 797 (“[Fjederal courts have held that, where *441equitable claims are to be resolved by the court and legal claims are to be resolved by the jury, the judge is ‘without power’ to reach a conclusion inconsistent with that of the jury.’ ”) (quoting with approval Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1333 (6th Cir.1988)).
It is clear that the need attendant in the civil context to safeguard an individual’s right to a trial by jury where legal and equitable claims are combined in a single civil proceeding is inapposite in a criminal context where a defendant has properly waived his jury trial right as to those counts giving rise to the separate, but simultaneous, trials proceeding.

. Discussing the evidentiary evidence supporting its verdict, see supra pages 439-40 the trial court noted that “[tjhere [wa]s no evidence that the incident occurred in anyway other than that as testified to by Mr. Knox,” and accordingly found “Mr. Knox's testimony credible as to the[ ] salient facts.”