Davis v. State
196 Md. App. 81
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2010Background
- Appellant Emerson Davis, Jr. was charged in the Wicomico County Circuit Court with two incidents on August 13, 2006: one count of second degree sexual offense, one count of second degree assault, and one count of fourth degree sexual offense as to Patient A; and one count of second degree assault and one count of fourth degree sexual offense as to Patient B.
- On April 23, 2007, Davis presented a binding plea agreement to Judge Beckstead, who rejected it and transferred the case to Judge Davis for trial.
- Judge Davis declined to consider the binding plea, stating he was not bound to accept or reject it, and instructed that the case would proceed to trial.
- The jury convicted Davis on all charges on April 24, 2007; he was sentenced on May 11, 2007 to ten years for the second degree offense and additional concurrent or consecutive terms, with probation and sex-offender registration.
- Davis appealed arguing (i) Rule 4-243 gave a defendant the right to present a binding plea to another judge after rejection, and (ii) the verdict sheet violated the presumption of innocence by listing “guilty” first.
- The Court of Special Appeals held that Rule 4-243 does not create a right to re-present a binding plea to a second judge after rejection and that, if a binding plea has been rejected, the defendant may withdraw or persist with a nonbinding plea; the case may be transferred between judges but the second judge need not consider the binding plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4-243 creates a right to present a binding plea to another judge after rejection | Davis argues Rule 4-243 allows presenting to multiple judges until accepted. | State contends Rule 4-243 contemplates a single judge review and transfer does not require reconsideration by another judge. | No, Rule 4-243 does not create such a right. |
| Whether the verdict sheet violated the presumption of innocence by listing 'guilty' first | Davis contends the ordering undermines innocence and mirrors Ruffin v. State. | State argues format is a verdict mechanism, with proper instructions ensuring presumption of innocence. | No reversible error; ordering does not erode presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allgood v. State, 309 Md. 58 (1987) (Rule 4-243 origins; plea rejection allows withdrawal and trial before another judge)
- Johnson v. State, 360 Md. 250 (2000) (Statutory-rule interpretation applies to rules; plain text governs)
- Ruffin v. State, 394 Md. 355 (2006) (Presumption of innocence and pattern instructions; verdict form considerations)
- Piper v. Iowa, 663 N.W.2d 894 (Iowa 2003) (Not reversible error to place not guilty after/guilty; jury instructions control)
- Watson v. State, 610 S.E.2d 472 (N.C.App. 2005) (Not controlling for MD; supports verdict-sheet-format considerations)
- Hoang v. Hewitt Ave. Assocs., 177 Md.App. 562 (2007) (Statutory interpretation requires considering context and purpose)
- Zetty v. Piatt, 365 Md. 141 (2001) (Plain meaning and contextual reading of rules)