Bishop v. State
417 Md. 1
| Md. | 2010Background
- Bishop, charged with two counts of child sexual abuse, entered a 'Not Guilty, Agreed Statement of Facts Plea' under a plea agreement.
- The State presented a proffer including Bishop's Miranda rights, his written and audio confessions, and a description of victims' anticipated testimony.
- A recording of consensually monitored telephone calls between Bishop and a victim, purporting to show acknowledgment of abuse, was offered but never admitted into evidence.
- Bishop was convicted based on the State's proffer notwithstanding suppression of his confession by the Court of Special Appeals.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed, applying harmless error analysis to the suppressed confession under Bruno; the Court granted review to address whether that framework applied.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, citing a muddled plea form and record, unresolved disputes about the telephone evidence, and an inability to apply Taylor/Bruno harmless error analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bruno harmless error applies when a confession is suppressed in a not guilty agreed statement case | Bishop: Bruno controls; harmless error applies to suppressed confession if evidence otherwise supports conviction. | State: confession was the linchpin; Bruno not controlling due to deliberate reliance on suppressed evidence. | Remand required; harmless error analysis not applicable due to record defects and conflicted evidence. |
| What is the proper characterization of Bishop's hybrid plea and its effect on appellate review | Bishop entered not guilty with an agreed statement of facts; record supports preservation of suppression issues. | Plea resembles a nolo/Alford hybrid; complicates review and may foreclose certain appeals. | Record muddled; remand to allow withdrawal of the plea. |
| Did unresolved disputes over the telephone conversations defeat proper guilt determination | Contents of the calls would have supported guilt; recordings not admitted created material dispute. | Disagreement with State's characterization of the calls; trial court lacked evidentiary resolution. | Remand required; unresolved disputes prevent harmless error determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruno v. State, 332 Md. 673 (1993) (harmless error framework for stipulated/not guilty statements)
- Taylor v. State, 388 Md. 385 (2005) (proffered evidence with disputed facts requires proper resolution)
- Barnes v. State, 31 Md. App. 25 (1976) (noting distinction between agreed statements and stipulations)
- Harrison v. State, 382 Md. 477 (2004) (admonishes prosecutors to ensure statements support each element of the crime)
- Polk v. State, 183 Md. App. 299 (2008) (cautionary guidance on proffered evidence in hybrid pleas)
- Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312 (1980) (preservation rule for suppression issues in agreed statements)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1976) (harmless error standard adopted from Chapman)