Black v. State
426 Md. 328
| Md. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Ocie L. Black, Jr. was convicted in Howard County of child sexual abuse and related offenses after a jury trial.
- Five jury notes were found in the court file after deliberations; three were communicated to the court and answered in writing.
- Note 4 was not dated or time-stamped and was not shown to have been received or answered by the court.
- The trial judge stated he did not receive Note 4, and there is no record of a response to it.
- Rule 4-326(d) requires prompt notification to the parties of jury communications and that such communications be on the record or in writing, with date/time of receipt noted.
- The Court of Special Appeals held Note 4 was not received by the court, so Rule 4-326(d) was not triggered and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Note 4 triggered Rule 4-326(d). | Black contends the note was in the court file and thus received. | State argues Note 4 was not received; thus Rule 4-326(d) never applied. | Note 4 was not received by the court; Rule 4-326(d) not triggered. |
| Whether the absence of a note’s receipt constitutes reversible error given juror communications. | Black asserts failure to disclose affected the defendant’s right to be present. | State maintains no error because there was no receipt and no obligation to disclose. | No reversible error because no receipt occurred. |
| What is the proper evidentiary standard when a court file contains an unmarked jury note? | noting presence of the note undermines presumption of regularity and supports receipt. | presumption of regularity remains; absence of receipt undermines proof of receipt. | Presumption of regularity stands; petitioner failed to rebut it; note not received. |
Key Cases Cited
- Denicolis v. State, 378 Md. 646 (2003) (receipt shown when note appears in record and is labeled as court exhibit)
- Fields v. State, 172 Md. App. 496 (2007) (unanswered note in record creates potential rule violation)
- Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 (1958) (absolute right to be present during jury communications)
- Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275 (2001) (communications with jury are mandatory to be on the record or written)
- Perez v. State, 420 Md. 57 (2011) (interpretation of Maryland Rules with plain meaning approach)