Grade v. State
431 Md. 85
| Md. | 2013Background
- Grade Grade was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and use of a handgun in a crime, receiving two concurrent life sentences plus 20 years.
- Grade challenged the trial court’s substitution of a regular juror with an alternate without notifying counsel or allowing input, alleging violation of Md. Rule 4‑326(d).
- On December 2, 2004, the court announced a plan to retain alternates to guard against delays and to excuse them only if all twelve original jurors were present, with counsel informed of the plan.
- The next morning, Juror No. 10 reported an emergency; Alternate No. 1 was seated in place of Juror No. 10 and deliberations began around 9:30, without prior notice to Grade’s counsel.
- Grade’s counsel objected, the judge stated that the action had been taken, and the case proceeded to appellate review, with the Court of Special Appeals initially upholding the ruling before the Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
- The Supreme Court held that Md. Rule 4‑326(d) requires notice and input when a juror communication pertaining to the action occurs, and that replacement of a juror with an alternate without such notice violated the rule, constituting reversible error and prejudice, meriting remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution of a juror without counsel notice violated Rule 4-326(d). | Grade argued the rule requires timely notice and input. | State argued counsel acquiesced and rule did not apply to the specific substitute. | Rule 4-326(d) violated; prejudice shown; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26 (1958) (right to be present at all stages of trial; juror communications require notice)
- Brown v. State, 272 Md. 450 (1974) (presence and right to counsel during trial; juror communications)
- Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213 (1994) (role of Rule 4-326(d) in juror communications)
- Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275 (2001) (mandatory notice for communications between judge and jury; open record)
- Taylor v. State, 352 Md. 338 (1998) (prejudice assessment for Rule 4-326(d) violations; burden on State)
- Diaz v. State, 129 Md.App. 51 (1999) (analysis under Rule 4-312(b)(3) for juror substitution; notice not at issue)
- Graham v. State, 325 Md. 398 (1992) (Rule 4-326(d) scope in communications with jury)
- Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213 (1994) (Rule 4-326(d) notice and input requirements)