Colvin v. State
126 A.3d 814
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- In 1989 Colvin was convicted by a Baltimore City jury of felony murder, attempted murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, and related handgun offenses and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
- The foreperson orally announced the jury’s verdicts in open court; the clerk then polled each juror except the foreperson and the court hearkened the verdicts. The foreperson was not asked on the poll whether her personal vote matched the announced verdicts.
- Colvin filed a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345 (motion to correct an illegal sentence) in 2013, arguing the failure to poll the foreperson rendered the verdicts non-unanimous and the sentence illegal.
- The circuit court denied relief, concluding (a) the claim was not cognizable under Rule 4-345 and (b) the polling procedure was adequate.
- The appellate court considered (1) whether challenges to a polling/unanimity defect can be raised under Rule 4-345 and (2) whether the specific polling procedure here made the verdict non-final/non-unanimous.
- The court held the claim was cognizable under Rule 4-345 but, on the merits, the polling/hearkening that occurred (plus the jury’s selection of the foreperson and the absence of any expression of dissent) established unanimity; the circuit court’s denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Colvin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defect in the polling process that allegedly failed to ensure unanimity is cognizable as an "illegal sentence" under Rule 4-345 | Colvin: Failure to poll the foreperson rendered verdicts non-unanimous and the resulting sentence illegal, so Rule 4-345 relief is available | State: The polling procedure was adequate; in any event this is not the kind of defect proper for a Rule 4-345 motion | Court: Claim may be raised under Rule 4-345 because a non-final/unanimous verdict can make a sentence illegal |
| Whether a foreperson who announces the jury’s verdict must also be polled individually to secure unanimity | Colvin: Foreperson announced for the panel, not personally; without polling her, unanimity is not established | State: Foreperson’s announcement, the polling of other jurors asking if the foreperson’s verdict was theirs, and the hearkening show unanimity | Court: Under totality of circumstances (foreperson announced verdict, other jurors unanimously affirmed, jury hearkened, foreperson chosen by jurors), failure to poll the foreperson did not create uncertainty; verdicts were unanimous and final |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 384 Md. 669 (2005) (oral announcement and proper finalization of verdict required; failure can render sentence illegal)
- Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158 (1984) (unanimity requirement; polling other jurors as to foreman’s announced verdict is the equivalent of each juror declaring that verdict)
- Brightwell v. State, 223 Md. App. 481 (2015) (sentences tied to non-finalized verdicts can be illegal; examine return/finalization procedures)
- Lattisaw v. State, 329 Md. 339 (1993) (ambiguity in polling answers can show lack of unanimity; totality of circumstances governs)
- Caldwell v. State, 164 Md. App. 612 (2005) (unanimity inquiry is mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo; assess totality of circumstances)
- Strong v. State, 261 Md. 371 (1971) (accepted practice where foreperson announces verdict and other jurors are polled as to whether foreperson’s verdict is their verdict)