Grimstead v. Brockington
10 A.3d 168
Md.2010Background
- Medical malpractice action where Grimstead was awarded $1,959,195 after a six-day trial for failure to diagnose/treat retroperitoneal cancer.
- Trial court allowed two alternate jurors to attend deliberations and substituted two alternates for original jurors during deliberations.
- Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding error in both allowing alternates in deliberations and mid-deliberation substitutions.
- Grimstead died during the appellate proceedings; Grimstead's estate substituted as petitioner; certiorari granted to address continued issues.
- Issues center on whether Rule 2-512/its criminal analogue precluded alternates in deliberations and mid-deliberation substitutions, and whether such procedures require a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presence of alternates in deliberations | Grimstead argues alternates in the jury room violated Rule 2-512 and Stokes/ Hayes precedents | Brockington contends waiver and consistency with prior practice; consent suffices | Reversed; presence of alternates during deliberations is reversible error |
| Mid-deliberation substitution of alternates | Substituting alternates after deliberations began violated rules and precedent | Consent to procedure and waiver considerations apply | Reversed; mid-deliberation substitution is error |
| Waiver and preservation of objections | Argues waiver does not cure due to fundamental error | Waiver applies; consent to procedure precludes reversal | Proceedings reversed regardless of waiver; the remedy is a new trial |
| Remedy | New trial necessary due to improper deliberation process | No outright error requiring new trial; issues preserved | Remand for new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. State, 355 Md. 615 (1999) (mid-deliberation substitution and standards for alternates in criminal civil contexts)
- Stokes v. State, 379 Md. 618 (2004) (alternate jurors in deliberations improper; sanctity of jury room; presumptive prejudice)
- Brantley v. Fallston General Hospital, Inc., 333 Md. 507 (1994) (distinction between deceased party timing and appellate substitution)
- Surland v. State, 392 Md. 17 (2006) (automatic suspensions/extensions for death of party; substitution procedure)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (implications for peremptory challenges and jury selection)