Carroll v. State
428 Md. 679
Md.2012Background
- George Carroll was convicted in Frederick County Circuit Court of four counts each of attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit those offenses, and related crimes.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the four conspiracy convictions should merge, but otherwise affirmed; the State’s burden on elements was not required to be stated element-by-element beyond the reasonable doubt standard.
- Carroll contended the reasonable doubt instructions were constitutionally deficient and that Rule 4-325(c) was violated by not adding language that the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Carroll challenged the conspiracy instruction given at trial as a separate crime rather than merging with attempted armed robbery.
- At trial, the court gave MPJI-Cr 2:02 for the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and instructed that the State must prove the elements of each charged offense; on conspiracy, the court gave a non-pattern instruction reflecting Aaronson’s formulation.
- Sentencing merged some counts; Carroll’s convictions for conspiracy and the attempted armed robberies remained as separate offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reasonable doubt instruction satisfied Winship and Rule 4-325(c). | Carroll argues instructions were deficient and failed to require proof of each element beyond a reasonable doubt. | State contends pattern instructions, read with offense instructions, conveyed burden adequately under Victor. | Instructions, read as a whole, satisfied constitutional requirements and Rule 4-325(c). |
| Whether fundamental fairness requires merger of conspiracy to commit armed robbery with attempted armed robbery. | Monoker-based fairness argues the conspiracy and attempt were part of a single continuous act. | State contends conspiracy and attempt target different conduct and deserve separate punishment. | Fundamental fairness did not require merger; conspiracy and attempted armed robbery remained separate offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (no particular form of words required to convey burden of proof)
- Ruffin v. State, 394 Md. 355 (2006) (endorsed MPJI-Cr 2:02; deviations not tolerated)
- Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (1990) (fundamental fairness supports merger in narrow circumstances)
- Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 (2005) (examples of fundamental fairness considerations in merger)
- Pair v. State, 202 Md.App. 617 (2011) (recognizes limited use of fundamental fairness in certain mergers)