Court Opinion

ID: 9762689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:29:05.660669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.708123
License: Public Domain

*258COLE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment vacating the death penalty. However, I do not agree with the majority’s reasoning in Part IV D of the opinion.
The majority holds that the new sentencer should be able to consider Harris’s robbery and related sentences as mitigating factors when weighing the possibility of a death sentence. I disagree.
It is impossible to divine the judge’s rationale for imposing the specific sentences and the new sentencer should not be influenced as to the appropriateness of the death penalty based upon the disposition the judge made in the other related crimes.
I believe the new sentencing jury should be in substantially the same situation as the old sentencing jury. Stated another way, the evidence produced before the new sentencer should be evidence that would have been admissible in the first sentencing proceeding or evidence of misconduct (otherwise admissible) that occurred subsequent to the former proceeding. As I see it, the sentences for the related crimes for which the defendant is on trial are irrelevant to the death sentence procedure as having no additional bearing on the facts of the crime or the defendant’s character, prior record, or redemptive qualities. The jury already knows of the conduct leading to his convictions and the introduction of these sentences can only confuse and distract the jury.
In Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 495 A.2d 1 (1985), this Court recognized the United States Supreme Court’s teachings that
a proper death penalty statute confines and directs the jury’s attention “to the circumstances of the particular crime and to ‘the characteristics of the person who committed the crime.’ ”
303 Md. at 527, 495 A.2d at 21, quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 111, 102 S.Ct. 869, 875, 71 L.Ed.2d 1, 9 (1982). Instead of confining the jury’s attention to the *259circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s characteristics, allowing evidence of Harris’s robbery and related sentences improperly focuses the jury’s attention upon how the trial judge thought the defendant should be punished.
In sum, to allow the sentencing jury to draw any inference from the robbery and related sentences is to approve an entirely unpredictable and conjectural process, which is the antithesis of the well-reasoned decision-making process required of a death penalty proceeding. In a death sentencing procedure the defendant should be protected against his own frustration. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the defendant should not be allowed to introduce this disconcerting evidence into the jury’s deliberative process.
McAULIFFE, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in judgment.
BLACKWELL, Judge, joins in Part I only.
I concur in the result, but write separately to express my disagreement with part IV-D (Exclusion of Sentences for Related Offenses) and with the dictum relating to a defendant’s burden of proof which appears in part IV-F (Order of Argument).
I.
In part IV-D, the majority states that evidence of sentences imposed upon Harris for related offenses should have been placed before the jury, not because of the relevance such information might have to the issue of future dangerousness, but because 1) a juror might find as a mitigating factor that Harris had been “appropriately sentenced” for those crimes, and 2) unless informed of the sentence that had been imposed, a jury might conclude that the sentence it was to determine for the murder was required to apply to all the crimes committed during the criminal episode. Neither, in my judgment, is a valid ground for admitting this evidence.
*260As to the first ground, what is to happen if the jury concludes that the sentence for a related offense is unduly lenient? May we then expect the jury to “heavy-up” on the murder sentence to compensate? Furthermore, if the question of the appropriateness of the sentence for related offenses is to be placed before the jury, should not the jury be given all the relevant sentencing information that pertained to those crimes, including the amount of loss and extent of injury to the victims, and perhaps other victim impact evidence properly considered by the sentencing judge but never placed before the first jury? Rather than involve the jurors in the determination of a collateral issue pertaining to the “appropriateness” of a sentence meted out for some other offenses, I would focus their attention upon the real issue before them—the appropriate sanctions for the murders committed by this defendant.
With respect to the second ground, I am at a loss to understand the genesis of what I consider to be a rather fanciful notion that, unless a juror is told of the specific sentence imposed for a related crime the juror will assume that the sentence for murder must be sufficiently harsh to embrace all related offenses. I believe it much more likely that jurors understand there are separate punishments for separate crimes. If there is any real concern that jurors would be confused about that, the answer is to explain the general principle, and further explain that the responsibility of sentencing for those crimes lies with the judge. If the hypothetical problem conjured up by the majority has any substance at all, it is readily dispatched without the necessity of informing the jury of the specific sentence imposed.
Another problem should be noted. What is the judge to tell the next sentencing jury concerning the sentence already imposed? The effect of the original sentence was to impose 20 years imprisonment concurrent with, and 20 years consecutive to, the sentence for murder. However, the stipulation that 20 years of the sentence should be consecutive to the sentence for murder is no longer effective. The sentence for murder will be vacated by our *261mandate, and the determination of whether a new sentence for murder will be consecutive to any part of the existing sentence is one that presumably may be made by the trial judge. DePietrantonio v. State, 61 Md.App. 528, 532, 487 A.2d 676, cert. denied, 303 Md. 295, 493 P.2d 349 (1985). It would be incorrect, then, to instruct the jury that any part of the earlier sentence will be consecutive to the sentence the jury determines. Also, how is the trial judge to explain the significance of a sentence that is consecutive to a life sentence, without explaining the impact upon the parole eligibility date? See Davis v. State, 312 Md. 172, 175, n. 4 539 A.2d. 218, 219, n. 4 (1988). I am of the opinion that the potential for confusion inherent in informing the jury of the previous sentence significantly outweighs the remote possibility of relevance posited by the majority.
II.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the facts and the law as they relate to the possibility of parole are irrelevant to a capital sentencing decision. Our capital punishment statute specifically sets forth as a possible mitigating circumstance that “[i]t is unlikely that the defendant will engage in further criminal activity that would constitute a continuing threat to society.” Maryland Code, Art. 27, § 413(g)(7) (1957, 1987 Repl. Vol.). Proper consideration of this potential mitigating circumstance necessarily requires a reasoned prediction of future behavior, and as the Supreme Court has pointed out, the difficulty of that task does not excuse its performance.
It is, of course, not easy to predict future behavior. The fact that such a determination is difficult, however, does not mean that it cannot be made. Indeed, prediction of future criminal conduct is an essential element in many of the decisions rendered throughout our criminal justice system____ And any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it en*262gages in the process of determining what punishment to impose____ The task that a [capital sentencing] jury must perform in answering the statutory question in issue is thus basically no different from the task performed countless times each day throughout the American system of criminal justice. What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 274-76, 96 S.Ct. 2950 [2957-58], 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976).
Predicting how long a defendant given a life sentence will remain in prison could be an integral part of predicting whether that defendant will ever again constitute a danger to society. Even assuming that the word “society” was intended to include the prison population, an assumption I do not concede, jurors may well conclude, as do sentencing judges, that some persons adjust well to institutional surroundings and are unlikely to pose a threat while so confined. Jurors may also be expected to factor in the age of a defendant, and, if the jurors are given the probable time of actual incarceration, they will be in a much better position to predict whether the defendant is likely to constitute a threat to society when released. If “society” as used in this statute means society of persons outside of prison, as is the popular connotation of the word, it becomes even more important to provide the jurors with useful information that will assist them in predicting when the prisoner will be released into society.
Predicting when a person convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment will likely be released on parole involves consideration of matters of law as well as fact. Section 4-607 of Art. 41 of the Code (1957,1986 Repl. Yol., 1987 Cum.Supp.) provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of a capital murder sentencing proceeding is not eligible for parole consideration until that person has served 25 years (or its equivalent after allowance for credits permitted by statute), and cannot in any event be paroled without the approval of the Governor. *263This is a matter of law about which the jurors charged with the duty of considering future dangerousness should be instructed. I believe the average juror is unaware of the intricacies of parole eligibility law, and is more likely to have been exposed to the generally apocryphal stories concerning murderers who were released on parole within a year or two of their convictions. Ordinarily, we are not reluctant about sharing with the jury the true state of the law, and we should have no reticence in this area.
In addition to information concerning the law, there is factual information that could significantly assist a jury in determining the probable time when a given prisoner will be granted parole. The Division of Parole and Probation has its own set of guidelines for parole consideration, as well as an extensive data base compiled from past parole experience. A person with sufficient education, training, or experience in this field, given pertinent information concerning the background and sentence of the defendant, should be able to state an opinion expressed in terms of reasonable probability concerning the likelihood of parole for that individual. While certainty cannot be achieved, probability can, and a well-grounded opinion expressing the probability of parole could be of considerable assistance to a jury grappling with this critical mitigating circumstance.
The problem of what to tell a jury about parole is likely to become even more acute now that the Legislature has added, in certain capital cases, the option of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. To instruct jurors that there are three sentencing options—death, life without parole, and life—is to instruct them that “life” carries with it the possibility of parole. In my judgment, the defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the significant limitations that the Legislature has placed upon the possibility of parole in this type of case.
As authority for a complete ban on information relating to the possibility or probability of parole, the majority cites Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487, 499 A.2d 1261 (1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 3310, 106 S.Ct. 3310, 92 L.Ed.2d 722 (1986). *264Evans, in turn, relies largely upon Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 453 A.2d 1218 (1983), and Poole relies upon Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462, 180 A.2d 682 (1962). Shoemaker, I submit, is not authority for excluding from a capital sentencing proceeding all evidence relating to parole.
Shoemaker involved the argument of a prosecutor to a jury at the guilt-innocence stage of a rape trial. The prosecutor, after informing the jury that the defendant could not be sentenced to more than 20 years if the jury followed the prosecutor’s recommendation and found the defendant guilty “without capital punishment,” proceeded to argue that the defendant could be released on parole after serving only one-third of whatever sentence was imposed, or earlier. Our predecessors reversed the conviction, finding the “chief vice” of the parole argument was that “it suggested to the jury that it might in part shift its responsibility for a finding of the defendant’s guilt to some other body,” Shoemaker, supra, at 469, 180 A.2d 682, and noting as well the absence of any evidence to support the prosecutor’s argument. I am in full agreement with the decision reached in Shoemaker. The prosecutor was improperly using the suggestion of early parole to make it easier for the jury to convict. That is a far cry, however, from the use of competent evidence concerning parole, or an accurate statement of law as it relates to parole, in the sentencing phase of a capital murder case.
Poole applied the rule of Shoemaker, complete with the rationale of improper shifting of the responsibility for a finding of guilt, even though the argument concerning parole was made at the sentencing stage of a bifurcated capital case, after guilt had been determined. On the facts of Poole, the Court’s condemnation of the prosecutor’s argument may have been correct, but its reliance on Shoemaker was misplaced.
Evans, 304 Md. at 529-30, 499 A.2d 1261, followed Poole and Shoemaker, and added the thought that a person might be as likely to engage in criminal activity constituting a threat to those around him whether confined in a criminal *265institution or on parole. I disagree. A juror certainly may find that a person constitutes no threat to society while confined, but would constitute a threat if released too soon. Knowledge of the law governing parole, and the availability of competent opinions properly grounded and based upon probabilities, would contribute to the jurors’ understanding of when parole in any given case might be likely. Factoring this information into the mix of other relevant information, including the age of the defendant and the defendant’s prior institutional history, would assist the jury in determining whether the particular defendant was likely to be a threat to society in the future.
III.
With respect to part IV-F of the majority opinion, I agree that, because the State bears the ultimate burden of proof in a capital sentencing proceeding, it is appropriate to afford the State the right to open and close in final argument. I disagree, however, with the suggestion that Harris did not have the burden of proof on the issue of the existence of mitigating circumstances. He did. In Stebbing v. State, 299 Md. 331, 361, 473 A.2d 903, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 900, 105 S.Ct. 276, 83 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984), this Court said that “[i]t is the accused’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a mitigating circumstance.” In Foster v. State, 304 Md. 439, 474, 499 A.2d 1236 (1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3310, 92 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986), this Court acknowledged that, as to mitigation, the defendant bears the risk of nonproduction or nonpersuasion. The majority agrees with that statement from Foster, but says that this is not the same as having the burden of proof. I cannot agree. I view “risk of nonpersuasion” and “burden of persuasion” as correlative terms. See Evans v. State, supra, 304 Md. at 543 (McAuliffe, J., concurring and dissenting); 9 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2485 (Chadbourn rev. 1981); McCormick on Evidence § 336, n. 4 (E. Cleary 3d ed. 1984). A burden of persuasion is a burden of proof. In Huffington v. State, 304 Md. 559, *266500 A.2d 272 (1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 3315, 92 L.Ed.2d 745 (1986), this Court was quite explicit about who had the burden of proof on the question of the existence of mitigating circumstances:
In the case at bar Huffington failed to carry his burden concerning proof of the mitigating factor that Hudson participated in the acts causing his death. 304 Md. at 583, 500 A.2d 272.
The majority is correct in noting that evidence of mitigating circumstances may come from evidence presented by the State, or by the defendant, or both. Moreover, because the range of circumstances which a juror could find to be mitigating is very broad, I agree that it would never be appropriate for the trial judge to instruct a jury that a defendant has failed to prove the existence of all mitigating circumstances as a matter of law. We need not shrink from the obvious, however, or engage in semantic gymnastics. There is nothing wrong with placing the burden of proof of the existence of mitigating circumstances upon a defendant. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). The General Assembly did precisely that, and we should not hesitate to say so.